LONDON : 
R.  CLAY,  PRINTER,  DEVONSHIRE  STREET,  BISHOPSGATE- 


LETTER! 


ON  THE 


s^^^ir^m  (0Bsr^^a.ii©ar 


OF  THE 


SON  OF  GOD, 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE 


REV.  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 


BYy 

MOSES  STUART, 

ASSOCIATE  PROF.   OF  SACRED  LITERATURE    IN  THE  THEOL.  SEMINARY, 
ANDOVER. 


ANDOVER.      1822. 


PUBLISHED  AND  FOR  SALE  BY  MARK  NEWMAN. 


FLAGG  AND  GOULD,  PRINTERS. 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I.     Introductory  Remarks  1 

LETTER  IL     Opinions  of  the  early  Fathers  14 

LETTER  in.     Remarks  on  the  opinions  of  the  early  Fathers    62 

LETTER  IV.     Particular   definitions  of  eternal  generation 

examined  77 

LETTER  V.     General  idea  comprised  in  all  the  particular 

definitions  examined  88 

LETTER  VI.     Use  of  the  word  So7i  in  the  Oriental  languages  94 

LETTER  VII.     Various   meanings   of  the   phrases  Son  arid 

Sons  of  God  in  the  Scriptures  100 

LETTER  VIII.     Meaning  of  the  appellation  Son  of  God,  as 

applied  to  Christ  108 

LETTER  IX.     Arguments  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
nal generation  examined  125 

LETTER  X.     Concluding  Remarks  163 


LETTER  I, 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  occasion  of  addressing  the  present  letters  to 
you  may  be  briefly  stated.  A  passage  in  the  third  of 
your  Letters  on  Unitarianism,  addressed  to  the  first 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  in  which 
you  have  stated  your  feelings  and  views  in  regard  to 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  led  me  to  a 
re-investigation  of  this  subject,  so  often  agitated  by  the 
church  in  ages  past.  The  design  of  the  present  letters 
is  to  submit  to  you,  and  to  the  Christian  public,  the  result 
of  this  investigation,  with  the  reasons  by  which  it  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  supported. 

In  my  letters  to  the  Rev.  William  E.  Channing,  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  of  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ,  I  have  said,  (p.  31.  2d  edit.)  "lam  unable  to 
conceive  of  a  definite  meaning  in  the  terms  eternal  gene- 
ration ;  and  I  cannot  regard  them  in  any  other  light, 
than  as  a  palpable  contradiction  of  language."  On  this 
subject,  however,  your  views  appear  to  be  very  differ- 
ent, as  they  are  presented  in  the  following  passage  from 
your  third  letter. 

"  Nor  ought  it  to  give  rise  to  the  least  difficulty  in  the  minds  of 
any,  that  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  called  the  So7i  of  God  ; 
that  He  is  said  to  be  the  only  Begotten  Son^  and  the  eternally  Begot- 
ten.   I  know  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of 

2 


2  INTRODUCTION.  [LeT.  I. 

God  is  regarded  by  many  as  implying  a  contradiction  in  terms.  But 
here  again  is  a  most  presumptuous  assumption  of  the  principle,  that 
God  is  a  being  altogether  such  an  one  as  ourselves.  Because  genera- 
tion among  men  necessarily  implies  priority^  in  the  order  of  time  as 
well  as  of  nature,  on  the  part  of  the  father,  and  derivation  and  poste- 
riority on  the  part  of  the  son,  the  objection  infers  that  it  must  also  be 
so  in  the  Divine  nature.  But  is  this  a  legitimate,  is  it  a  rational  in- 
ference ?  It  certainly  is  not.  That  which  is  true,  as  it  respects  the 
nature  of  man,  may  be  infinitely  removed  from  the  truth,  as  it  re- 
spects the  eternal  God.  It  has  been  often  well  observed,  that,  with 
regard  to  all  effects  which  are  voluntary^  the  cause  must  be  prior  to 
the  effect ;  as  the  father  is  to  the  son,  in  human  generation  :  But 
that  in  all  that  are  necessary^  the  effect  must  be  coeval  with  the  cause  ; 
as  the  stream  is  with  the  fountain,  and  light  with  the  sun.  Has  the 
sua  ever  existed  a  moment  without  sending  out  beams  ?  And  if  the 
sun  had  been  an  eternal  being,  would  there  not  have  been  an  eter- 
nal, necessary  emanation  of  light  from  it?  But  God  is  confessedly 
eternal.  Where,  then,  is  the  absurdit}'^  or  contradiction  of  an  eternal, 
necessary  emanation  from  Him,  or,  if  you  please,  an  eternal  generation^ 
— and  also  an  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son  ?  To  deny  the  possibility  of  this,  or  to  assert  that  it  is  a 
manifest  contradiction^  either  in  terms  or  ideas,  is  to  assert  that,  al- 
though the  Father  is  f>om  all  eternity,  jet  He  could  not  act  from  all 
eternity  ;  which,  I  will  venture  lo  assert,  is  as  unphilosophical  as  it 
is  IMPIOUS.  Sonship,  even  among  men,  implies  no  personal  inferiority. 
A  son  may  he  perfectly  equal,  and  is  sometimes  greatly  superior  to 
his  father,  in  every  desirable  power,  and  quality :  and,  in  general, 
he  does  in  fact  partake  of  the  same  human  nature,  in  all  its  fullness 
and  perfection,  with  his  parent.  But,  still,  forsooth,  it  is  objected, 
tbat  we  cannot  conceive  oi generation  in  any  other  sense  than  as  im- 
plyins; posteriority  and  derivation.  But  is  not  this  saying,  in  other  words, 
that  the  objector  is  determined,  in  the  face  of  all  argument,  to  per- 
sist in  measuring  Jehovah  by  earthly  and  human  principles  ?  Shall 
we  never  have  done  with  such  a  perverse  begging  of  the  question, 
as  illegitimate  in  reasoning,  as  it  is  impious  in  its  spirit  ?  The  scrip- 
tures declare  that  Christ  is  the  60/1,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Fa- 
ther; to  the  Son  the  Father  is  represented  as  saying,  l^iy  throne^  O 
God^  is  forever  and  ever:  and  concerning  himself  the  Son  declares, 
/  and  my  Father  are  one.  This  is  enough  for  the  christian's  faith. 
He  finds  no  more  difhculty  in  believing  this,  than  in  believing  that 
there  is  an  eternal,  omniscient  and  omnipresent  Spirit,  who  made  all 
worlds  out  of  nothing,  and  upholds  them  continually  by  the  word  of 
his  power. 

''  1  am  aware  that  some  who  maintain,  with  great  zeal,  the  Divini- 
ty and  atonement  of  Christ,  reject  his  eternal  Sonship^  or  generation, 
as  being  neither  consistent  with  reason,  nor  taught  in  scripture.  It 
does  not  accord,  either  with  my  plan  or  my  inclination,  to  spend  much 
time  in  animadverting  on  this  aberration,  for  such  I  must  deem  it, 
from  the  system  of  gospel  truth.     I  will   only    say  that,  to  me,  the 


Let.  I.]  INTRODUCTION,  3 

iloctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  the  Saviour  appears  to  be  plainly 
taught  in  the  word  of  Gotl,  and  to  be  a  doctrine  of  great  importance 
in  the  economy  of  salvation.  Of  course,  I  view  those  who  reject  it, 
not  merely  as  in  error,  but  in  very  serious  error ;  an  error  which, 
though  actually  connected  with  ardent  piet}^,  and  general  orthodoxy, 
in  many  who  embrace  it,  has,  nevertheless,  a  very  unhappy  tenden- 
cy, and  cannot  fail,  I  fear,  to  draw  in  its  train  many  mischievous  con- 
sequences. If  the  title  Farmer,  be  the  distinctive  title  of  the  first 
Person  of  the  adorable  Trinity,  as  such.,  does  not  the  correlative  title 
of  Son  seem  to  be  called  for  by  the  second  Person,  as  such?  If  the 
second  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be  distinguished  by  the  title  of 
Son^  what  is  his  distinguishing  title  ?  By  what  appropriate  name  are 
we  to  know  Him,  as  distinguished  from  the  other  Persons?  In  the 
form  of  Baptism,  all  the  friends  of  orthodoxy  grant  that  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  expressive  of  divine  personal  distinctions ; 
but  if  so,  what  good  reason  can  be  given  why  the  Son  should  be  un- 
derstood differently?  In  short,  my  belief  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  and  the  Divine  character  of  the  Saviour,  that 
where  the  former  is  generally  abandoned,  neither  of  the  two  latter 
will  be  long  retained.  I  must  therefore,  warn  you  against  the  er- 
ror of  rejecting  this  doctrine,  even  though  it  come  from  the  house  of 
a  friend.  It  is  a  mystery,  but  a  precious  mystery,  which  seems  to 
be  essentially  interwoven  with  the  whole  substance,  as  well  as  lan- 
guage, of  the  blessed  economy  of  mercy. 

'^  Concerning  this  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  the  early  Christian 
writers  constantly  declared  that  it  was  firmly  to  be  believed  ;  but, 
at  the  same  time,  that  it  was  presumptuous  to  attempt  to  inquire  in- 
to the  manner  of  it. 

"  Irenmis  asserts,  that  '  the  Son,  from  eternity,  co-existed  with 
THE  Father  ;  and  that  from  the  beginning,  he  always  revealed  the 
Father  to  angels,  and  archangels,  and  principaUties  and  powers,  anti 
all  to  whom  it  pleased  him  to  reveal  him.'* 

'^  Lactantius^  in  his  fourth  book  De  vera  Sapientia^  says  '  How,  there- 
fore, did  the  Father  beget  the  Son  ?  These  divine  works  can  be 
known  of  none,  declared  by  none.  But  the  holy  scriptures  teach 
that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  that  He  is  the  Word  of  God.' 

''  Ambrose^  in  his  treatise,  De  Fide^  ad  Gratianum^  speaks  in  the 
following  decisive  and  eloquent  strain — I  inquire  of  you  '  when  and 
how  the  Son  was  begotten?  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  know  the  mys- 
tery of  this  generation.  My  mind  fails ;  my  tongue  is  silent ;  and  not 
only  mine,  but  the  tongues  of  angels  :  it  is  above  principalities, 
above  angels,  above  the  Cherubim,  above  the  Seraphim,  above  all 
understanding.  Lay  thine  hand  upon  thy  mouth.  It  is  not  lawful 
to  search  into  these  heavenly  mysteries.  It  is  lawful  to  know  that 
he  'was  born,  but  not  lawful  to  examine  how  he  was  born.  The  for- 
mer I  dare  not  deny ;  the  latter  I  am  afraid  to  inquire  into.     For  if 

*  Contra  H^reses,  Lib.  11.  cap  30. 


4  INTRODUGTION.  [LeT.  I. 

Paul^  when  he  was  taken  up  into  the  third  heaven,  affirms  that  the 
things  which  he  heard  could  not  be  uttered,  how  can  we  express  the 
mystery  of  the  Divine  Generation,  which  we  can  neither  understand 
nor  see?' 

"  Let  not,  then,  my  Christian  Brethren,  the  charge  of  '  mystery,' 
or  the  cant  proverb,  that  'where  mystery  begins,  faith  and  religion 
end,'  in  the  least  move  you.  That  mystery  should  be  readily  allow- 
ed to  exist  every  where  in  God's  Creation^  and  in  God's  Providence, 
and  at  the  same  time  be  unceremoniously  rejected  from  God's  Reve- 
lation^ is  indeed  more  than  strange  !  That  creatures  who  acknow- 
ledge that  the  nature  of  God  is  infinitely  unlike,  and  infinitely  above, 
that  of  any  other  being  in  the  Universe  ;  and  that  their  own  share 
of  reason  is  so  small  that  they  can  scarcely  think  or  speak  intelligi- 
bly about  it,  or  so  much  as  define  their  own  faculties  of  reasoning ; 
should  yet  refuse  to  believe  any  thing  of  Jehovah  which  does  not 
accord  with  human  notions ;  is,  surely,  as  weak  and  irrational  as  it  is 
presumptuous.  But  that  creatures  who  confess  themselves  to  be 
miserable  sinners,  lying  at  the  footstool  of  mercy,  and  standing  in 
need  of  a  revelation  from  God,  to  teach  them,  what  they  could  not 
otherwise  know,  concerning  his  perfections,  and  the  way  of  accep- 
tance with  Him ;  should  yet,  when  they  acknowledge  that  such  a 
Revelation  has  been  given,  undertake  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  it,  and 
to  reject  such  parts  of  it  as  are  above  the  grasp  of  their  disordered 
and  enfeebled  reason  ;  argues  a  degree  of  daring  and  infatuated  im- 
piety, which,  if  it  were  not  so  common,  we  should  be  ready  to  say 
could  not  exist.  Wherein  does  it  essentially  differ  from  that  temper  by 
which  *  angels  became  apostate  spirits  ?  "     pp.  86 — 93. 

I  must  frankly  acknowledge  to  you  my  regret,  that  I 
have  expressed  myself  on  this  subject,  in  terms  so 
strong.  The  only  apology  for  this  which  I  can  make, 
is,  that  at  the  time  when  I  wrote  my  Letters,  I  was 
not  at  all  apprehensive  that  the  doctrine  o(  eternal  gene- 
ration was  looked  upon,  by  Christians  in  our  country,  to 
be  so  precious  and  important  a  truth,  as  your  ihird  Let- 
ter represents  it  to  be.  I  knew,  indeed,  that  there  were 
theologians,  who  received  and  maintained  the  doctrine. 
But  I  was  not  conscious  that  it  was  regarded  in  such  a 
light  as  to  call  for  zealous  effort  to  defend  it,  or  that  the 
denial  of  it  would  make  any  breach  of  entire  confidence 
and  charity  between  Christian  brethren.  Nothing  was 
more  natural  than  for  me  to  have  felt  thus.     During  all 


Let.  I.]  INTRODUCTION.  5 

my  theological  life,  I  had  never  once  heard  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  generation  seriously  avowed  and  defended. 
Nearly  all  the  ministers  in  New  England,  since  I  have 
been  upon  the  stage,  have,  so  far  as  I  know  their  senti- 
ments, united  in  rejecting  it,  or  at  least  in  regarding  it  as 
unimportant.  Our  most  distinguished  theologians,  for 
forty  years  past,  have  openly  declared  against  it.  Mul- 
titudes of  ministers  among  us,  of  distinguished  talents 
and  theological  knowledge  ;  men  of  eminent  piety,  and 
whose  labours  have  been  blessed  with  such  revivals  of 
religion  as  have  scarcely  appeared  in  any  countrv  ;  men 
whom  the  cliurch  will  honour,  long  after  they  are  dead, 
as  some  of  her  brightest  ornaments,  as  diadems  in  her 
crown  of  glory  ;  men  who  are  not  only  orthodox,  but 
distinguished  champions  of  orthodoxy;  reject,  as  I  have 
done,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation.  Many  who 
are  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus,  and  have  gone  to  be  rewarded 
by  that  Saviour  whom  they  loved  and  honoured,  were  of 
the  same  sentiments  and  character. 

i(  you  add  to  this  the  consideration,  that  all  my  con- 
victions, springing  l>om  former  examinations  of  the  sub- 
ject, were,  at  the  time  when  I  wrote,  really  and  truly 
what  my  language  imports,  you  will  not  be  surprised, 
perhaps,  that  I  expressed  myself  as  I  have  done.  But 
I  had  no  individual,  nor  any  particular  class  of  men  in 
our  country,  in  view,  when  I  thus  wrote.  Of  designed 
rudeness,  then,  or  disrespect  to  any  particular  man,  or 
body  of  men,  I  feel  myself  in  no  measure  conscious.  Yet, 
as  some  of  my  Christian  brethren  appear  to  have  been  of- 
fended by  the  strength  of  my  expression  on  the  subject 
in  question,  it  is  matter  of  regret  to  me,  that  I  did  not 
make  use  of  terms  less  adapted  to  wound  the  feelings 
of  those,  who  may  differ  from  me. 


6  INTRODUCTION.  [LeT.  I. 

I  know  your  excellent  character  and  benevolent  spirit 
too  well,  to  believe  that  you  would  write  one  line  in 
order  to  wound  the  feelings  of  the  great  body  of  your 
clerical  brethren  in  New  England,  (and  of  many  out  of 
it  also,)  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation. 
I  will  not,  therefore,  take  exceptions  at  the  charge  of 
impiety^  and  of  verging  to  Unitarian  sentiments^  which 
you  have  connected  with  rejecting  this  doctrine.  Though 
I  have  the  pleasure  of  only  a  moderate  personal  ac- 
quaintance with  you,  I  know  enough  concerning  you  to 
believe,  that  strong  as  your  language  is,  and  high  as  the 
nature  of  the  charge  might  seem  to  be  against  your 
Christian  brethren  and  fellow  labourers  in  the  gospel,  it 
proceeds  from  no  ill-will  to  them  ;  nor  from  any  cause 
but  an  honest  and  well  meaning  zeal,  for  what  you  be- 
lieve to  be  truth.  I  have  no  disposition  to  ring  the 
charges  about  abuse,  which  the  Latitudinarians  of  our 
country  are  continually  ringing,  merely  because  a  person 
speaks  out  his  honest  feelings  respecting  their  views. 
They  must  needs  make  persecution  of  it.  They  seem 
to  me,  to  court  persecution  with  great  greediness  ;  for 
one  cannot  seriously  say  that  he  believes  them  to  be  in 
dangerous  error,  without  exciting  complaint  of  abuse,  and 
that  the  spirit  of  the  dark  ages  is  reviving  in  our  coun- 

try- 

With  jealousies  like  these  I  am  not  agitated.  I  love 
to  hear  men  honestly  and  frankly  speak  out  their  real 
feelings.  How  can  truth  undergo  a  fair  discussion,  on 
any  other  ground  ?  And  if,  in  the  warmth  of  honest 
feehng,  some  expressions  a  little  too  highly  coloured  es- 
cape from  them,  a  generous  man,  knowing  that  he  him- 
self "  is  compassed  with  infirmity,"  will  not  dwell  with 
eagerness  upon  such  expressions,  nor  take  any  pleasure 
in  imputing  to  them  a  wrong  spirit. 


Let.  I.]  INTRODUCTION.  7 

Whether  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  o(  eternal  gene- 
ration be  so  important,  and  so  fraught  with  danger,  as 
you  seem  to  think,  is  a  proper  subject  of  examination. 
The  doctrine  must  first  be  proved  to  be  true,  before  the 
inference  can  be  fairly  drawn,  that  the  rejection  of  it  is 
impious.  But  unless  it  can  be  made  very  plain — unless 
it  can  be  irrefragably  proved,  perhaps  it  is  not  expe- 
dient to  pronounce  the  rejection  of  it  to  be  impious  and 
heretical;  specially  if,  as  is  probable,  a  majority  of  or- 
thodox Christians  in  this  country  reject  it. 

My  great  respect  and  affection  for  you  induced  me, 
when  I  saw  the  passage  in  your  Letters  above  extract- 
ed, to  pause,  and  ask ;  Have  I  not  been  rash,  in  rejecting 
a  doctrine,  which  so  dear  a  friend  and  so  excellent  a 
minister  of  Christ  regards  as  thus  highly  important,  and 
intimately  connected  with  his  best  hopes  and  highest 
happiness  ? — I  was  not  long,  in  deciding  that  it  was  my 
duty  to  reexamine  the  question.  This  I  have  done,  so 
far  as  my  time  occupied  with  pressing  official  duties 
would  enable  me  to  do  ;  and  I  now  beg  the  liberty  of 
submitting  the  result  of  this  investigation  to  your  eye, 
and  to  that  of  the  Christian  public. 

I  rejoice  that  I  can  engage  in  this  investigation,  with 
the  full  persuasion,  that  our  difference  of  opinion  about 
the  doctrine  in  question  is  not  essentially  concerned  ei- 
ther with  piety  or  Christian  brotherhood.  With  all  my 
heart,  1  love  and  honour  you  as  a  sincere  and  eminent 
Christian,  although  you  differ  from  me  in  your  views  re- 
specting the  point  before  us  ;  and  if  you  cannot  return 
this  fraternal  feeling,  (which  however  I  am  not  at  all 
inclined  to  suppose  is  the  fact,)  I  am  well  satisfied  that 
it  is  only  because  you  are  honestly  and  sincerely  con- 
vinced that  I  am  in  an  error,  which  you  think  danger- 
ous to  the  best  interests  of  religion. 


8  INTRODUCTION.  [LeT.  I. 

I  approach  the  subject  before  me,  then,  with  no  oth- 
er feelings  than  those  of  kindness  and  respect.  If  I  have 
come  to  an  erroneous  conclusion,  after  a  pretty  thorough 
reexamination,  it  will  be  matter  of  gratitude,  should  you 
or  any  other  Christian  brother  show  me  reasons  to  be- 
hove that  my  conclusion  is  groundless.  1  profess  to 
seek  for  truth  ;  and  if  my  heart  does  not  deceive  me,  1 
do  sincerely  wish  to  know  the  truth,  on  this  subject.  I 
doubt  not  that  you  can  reciprocate  these  feelings  ;  and 
that  you  will  consider  with  candor  what  I  may  allege, 
in  support  of  the  opinion  which  1  have  formed. 

We  will  not  dispute  ;  but  it  is  lawful  and  Christian  to 
investigate  and  to  discuss.  Truth  cannot  suffer  by  this, 
if  we  act  soberly  and  with  kind  feehngs,  while  engaged 
in  discussion. 

i  am  fully  aware  that  some  friends,  for  whom  I  have 
a  high  respect,  and  to  whom  I  am  attached  by  every 
tender  tie  of  Christian  brotherhood  and  affection,  are 
apprehensive  of  evil  from  a  discussion  of  this  subject.  I 
ought  rather  to  say,  in  justice  to  them,  they  are  appre- 
hensive that  it  may  turn  out  to  be  dispute  instead  of  dis- 
cussion. They  are  afraid  that  some  breach  of  confidence 
and  affection  between  the  Christian  brethren  of  the 
North  and  South,  may  be  the  consequence  of  it.  It  is 
impossible  for  me  not  to  respect  such  kind  and  peaceful 
feelings.  And  if  I  thought  that  they  judged  rightly  of 
the  influence  of  discussion,  I  should  feel  myself  bound  to 
acquiesce  in  their  views.  But  I  have  not  been  able,  for 
a  single  moment,  to  suppose  that  our  brethren  at  the 
South,  are  not  sincerely  desirous  of  having  every  subject 
of  religious  opinion  undergo  a  fair  and  thorough  scruti- 
ny. A  man  may,  indeed,  forfeit  their  good  opinion,  who 
wantonly  assails  any  principles  which  they  regard  with 


Let.  I.]  INTRODUCTION.  9 

serious  approbation;  or  who  treats  sacred  subjects  with 
irreverence  and  levity  ;  or  disputes  in  a  dogmatical,  or 
disrespectful  manner.  It  is  proper  that  they  should 
withhold  their  confidence  from  such  a  man.  But  that 
they  are  unwilling  or  afraid  to  discuss  any  of  the  prin- 
ciples which  they  adopt,  cannot,  for  a  moment,  be  cred- 
ited by  any  one,  who  is  acquainted  with  them,  and  seri- 
ously considers  the  nature  of  the  Protestant  principles 
which  they  embrace. 

Even  if  this  could  be  supposed  of  any  individuals 
among  them,  I  am  sure  that  no  one,  who  is  well  ac- 
quainted with  you,  can  suppose  that  you  would  either 
shrink  from  investigation,  or  regard  it  with  a  jealous  or 
an  unfriendly  eye.  Nothing  is  more  unlike  you.  I  cannot, 
therefore,  feel  that  there  is  any  hazard  in  submitting  to 
your  eye  considerations  respecting  the  subject  in  ques- 
tion, which  are  purely  historical  and  theological,  and 
have  nothing  in  them  of  the  nature  of  personal  dispute. 

The  opponents  of  orthodox  principles  have,  I  well 
know,  often  sugrorested  that  those  who  embrace  them  are 
afraid  of  investigation,  lest  the  consequence  should  be 
the  downfall  of  their  system.  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that 
they  are  very  much  mistaken.  There  is  another  topic, 
also,  on  which  they  love  to  dwell.  When  we  refrain 
from  discussion,  they  charge  us  with  fictitious,  dissem- 
bled unity  of  sentiment,  and  give  us  no  credit  for  real 
agreement.  When  we  discuss  our  differences  of  opinion, 
they  triumphantly  allege  that  the  orthodox  are  no  bet- 
ter agreed  among  themselves,  than  they  are  with  them. 
Satisfy  them  therefore  we  cannot,  neither  by  our  si- 
lence, nor  by  our  discussions;  unless  indeed,  they  may 
hope,  in  case  we  should  fall  out  among  ourselves,  that 
3 


10  INTRODUCTION.  [LeT.  1. 

their  own  parfy  would  chance  to  gain  some  accession  to 
it  from  our  numbers. 

I  will  not  allege,  that  it  is  unbecoming  to  regard  what 
thej  may  say  of  our  discussions.  But  as  a  Protestant  I 
may  say,  that  the  love  of  truth  ought  to  be  a  considera- 
tion predominant  over  all  others.  I  must  say,  that  the 
supposition  we  cannot  and  may  not  discuss  theological 
questions,  about  which  different  opinions  are  entertain- 
ed among  us,  is  in  fact,  (though  our  friends  certainly  do 
not  design  it  to  be,)  reproachful  to  us,  and  to  the  cause 
of  truth,  which  we  profess  above  all  things  to  love. 
What!  Have  not  good  men,  in  every  age,  differed  in 
regard  to  their  views  of  some  things  not  fundamental  in 
religion  ?  And  are  we  to  suppose,  that  the  period  is 
now  come,  when  even  the  nicer  shades  of  sentiment  ei- 
ther must  be,  or  must  be  professed  to  be,  the  same  in 
all  ?  It  is  useless  to  claim  an  imaginary  perfection, 
which  does  not,  and  never  did,  and  never  will  exist,  in 
the  present  world  ;  and  to  the  cause  of  truth  it  would 
be  deleterious,  in  a  high  degree,  to  suppress  in  any  way, 
or  discourage  the  spirit  of  inquiry,  when  conducted  with 
sobriety  and  decorum. 

I  am  so  well  persuaded  of  the  truth  and  propriety  of 
these  sentiments,  that  1  cannot  hesitate  to  lay  before 
my  Christian  brethren,  who  believe  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  following 
considerations,  to  invite  their  examination  of  this  sub- 
ject. If  any  of  them  should  think  proper  to  reply  to 
what  I  may  suggest,  I  can  anticipate,  with  confidence, 
that  it  will  be  done  in  a  friendly  and  Christian  manner. 
The  opponents  of  our  common  faith  shall  not  be  gratifi- 
ed with  our  disputes.  We  hope  to  set  them  a  good  ex- 
ample of  sober  and  temperate  discussion',  and  to  show 


Let.    I.]  INTRODUCTION.  11 

them  that  the  orthodox,  while  they  sincerely  believe 
the  doctrines  which  they  profess  to  believe,  are  ready 
to  discuss,  and  desirous  to  illustrate  every  principle 
which  they  receive. 

Instead  of  making  divisions  between  those  who  love 
and  worship  the  same  God  and  Saviour,  I  fully  believe 
that  discussion,  (such  as  it  ought  to  be,)  will  always  tend 
to  prevent  it ;  and  this,  in  exact  proportion  to  the  light 
which  may  be  thrown  by  it  upon  any  topic  in  theology. 
If  our  reasons  for  rejecting  the  doctrine  now  to  be  dis- 
cussed are  valid,  can  I  hesitate  to  believe  that  you  will 
incline  to  our  opinion  ?  If  you,  on  the  other  hand,  find 
them  insufficient,  and  shew  them  to  be  so,  are  we  so  un- 
reasonable as  to  persevere  in  our  opinion?  I  answer^ 
No  ;  and  I  confidently  answer  so,  because,  although  I 
may  not  be  permitted  to  say  it  of  myself,  I  can  say  it  of 
my  brethren  beloved  in  the  Lord,  that  they  love  truth 
more  than  they  do  party-opinions ;  and  that  they  only 
need  to  have  the  truth  clearly  developed,  in  order  to 
embrace  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  subject  in  question  should 
sleep,  differences  of  opinion  will  still  continue  to  exist,  as 
they  now  do,  respecting  it ;  and  the  danger  that,  in  such 
circumstances,  this  topic  will  be  magnified,  and  be  the 
occasion  of  alienated  feeling,  is  certainly  not  to  be  over- 
looked. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  time  has  come,  when  it  is 
necessary  to  examine  well  the  doctrines  which  we  be- 
lieve and  Inculcate.  The  watchful  opponents  of  our 
common  faith  have  their  eyes  on  all  the  steps  of  its  ad- 
vocates, and  will  demand  a  reason  for  all  that  they  in- 
culcate. But  independently  of  this,  the  love  of  truth 
should  be  enough  to  stimulate  us  to  the  highest  efforts, 
in  order  to  know  what  we  ought  to  believe  and  teach. 


12  INTRODUCTION,  [LeT.  I. 

We  ought  highly  to  venerate  the  pious  fathers  in 
the  Church,  who  have  given  us  summaries  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  which  they  sincerely  believed;  but  as  the 
ministers  of  truth,  we  are  obliged  to  call  no  man  mas- 
ter upon  earth.  We  have  a  heavenly  master,  who  has 
made  his  word  the  supreme  and  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  That  word  we  must  investigate,  to  know 
whether  the  doctrines  of  our  Symbols  are  true  ;  and  not 
taking  those  doctrines  as  already  established,  bring  the 
word  of  God  to  their  test.  Thus  lived  and  acted  Lu- 
ther, Zuingle,  Calvin,  and  all  that  blessed  host  of  wor- 
thies, who  burst  asunder  the  bonds  of  tradition  and  hu- 
man authority ;  and  we,  their  children  in  respect  to 
professed  principles,  may  venture  to  walk  in  their  steps. 

It  is  just  as  much  our  individual  duty  now,  to  bring 
every  principle  of  the  creed  of  the  Protestant  Churches 
to  the  test  of  the  divine  word,  as  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Reformers  to  bring  that  of  the  Catholics  to  the  test  of 
Scripture.  This  position  is  absolutely  certain;  unless 
we  can  prove  that  the  formers  of  Protestant  Symbols 
were  inspired.  If  they  were  not,  they  may  have  erred 
in  some  things  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  important  to  us,  if  possi- 
ble, to  know  in  what  they  have  erred.  But  how  shall 
we,  or  how  can  we  know  this,  unless  their  creeds  are 
subjected,  anew  and  repeatedly,  to  the  test  of  the 
Scriptures? 

Will  it  be  said,  that  the  dwarfs  of  modern  days  only 
exhibit  their  pride  and  self  conceit  in  attempting  a  com- 
parison Avlth  those  giants  of  yore  ?  If  it  should,  my 
answer  would  be  ;  That  dwarfs  as  we  are  in  modern  days, 
we  stand,  at  least,  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  ancient 
giants,  and  must  needs  have  a  somewhat  more  extended 
horizon  than  they.     To  speak  plainly,  the  whole  word 


Let.  1.]  INTRODUCTION.  13 

of  God  represents  the  path  of  the  Church,  hke  that  of 
the  just,  to  be  as  the  light,  which  shineth  more  and  more 
unto  the  perfect  day.  The  Kingdom  of  God  always 
has  been,  and  still  is  progressive.  Glory  is  bursting  in 
upon  the  Church,  in  various  ways  intimately  connected 
with  making  her  light  to  shine  still  more  brightly.  Is 
she  yet  perfected  in  doctrine  ?  Are  all  the  treasures  of 
the  divine  word  yet  unlocked?  Are  her  fairest  days 
past,  and  her  brightest  constellations  set,  to  rise  no  more  ? 
The  "  thousand  years''  of  glory  yet  to  come,  will  supply 
a  ready  answer  to  these  questions. 

So  long  as  we  profess  to  be  Protestants,  and  of  course 
profess  to  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the  svj^cient  and  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  so  long,  if  we  act  consistently, 
we  believe  in  the  Symbols  of  faith  which  we  receive, 
only  because  we  find  them  supported  by  the  Scriptures. 
It  is  not  only  lawful  then  to  put  them  to  this  test ;  but 
it  is  an  imperious  duty  for  every  man  to  do  it,  who  is 
able  to  do  it.  There  may  be  a  show  of  modesty  and  hu- 
mility in  receiving  what  others  have  believed,  without  ex- 
amination and  without  scrutiny  ;  but  in  every  case,  where 
there  is  ability  to  investigate  and  bring  to  the  Scripture 
test,  a  failure  to  do  it  must  arise  from  undue  regard  to 
the  authority  of  fallible  men,  or  from  mere  inaction — from 
absolute  sloth. 

Such  are  the  sentiments,  which,  with  all  my  rever- 
ence for  the  Reformers  and  for  our  Symbols  of  Faith,  I 
entertain ;  and  which  I  do  not  hesitate  openly  to  avow,  and 
am  not  unwilling  to  defend.  And  such,  I  doubt  not,  are 
your  views  and  feelings.  Such,  indeed,  are  the  senti- 
ments which  you  have  expressed ;  and  to  which  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  advert,  in  the  commencement  of  my 
next  Letter. 


14  OPINIONS  OF   THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  U. 

I  cannot  close  the  present  without  adding,  that,  placed 
in  the  situation  where  you  and  I  are,  with  our  responsi- 
bilities for  what  we  teach,  Scriptural  investigation  of 
every  doctrine  connected  with  the  Christian  religion, 
becomes  doubly  a  duty. 


LETTER  II. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

It  is  grateful  to  find  that  your  sentiments,  in  respect 
to  the  real  foundation  of  Christian  doctrines,  agree  so 
entirely  with  mine  ;  and  I  trust  I  may  add,  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Protestant  religion.  In 
pp.  100,  101,  &c,  of  your  Letters,  you  have  undertaken 
to  show  and  reprove  the  "  weakness"  of  Unitarians,  in 
attempting  to  support  their  views  by  the  authority  of 
great  names.  You  say,  p.  101,  "The  weakness  of  this 
plea  is  so  obvious,  that  a  formal  refutation  of  it  will  not 
be  thought  necessary,  by  any  impartial  reader."  In  the 
sequel,  you  say  very  justly,  that  Transubstantiation  and 
and  other  "gross  errors  and  most  wretched  supersti- 
tions" might  be  proved  to  be  true,  if  this  mode  of  argu- 
ment could  be  adopted. 

In  Letter  IV,  p.  Ill,  you  say,  "The  word  of  God,  as 
the  orthodox  believe,  is  the  only  certain  test  of  divine 
truth;  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Of 
course,  that  which  is  not  found  in  Scripture,  however 
extensively  and  unanimously  it  may  have  been  received 
by  those  who  love  the  Christian  name,  must  be  reject- 
ed, as  forming  no  part  of  the  precious  system,  which 
God  has  revealed  to  man  for   his  salvation."     You  then 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  15 

proceed  to  observe,  that  still  there  Is  consolation  as  well 
as  duty  in  walking  in  the  steps  of  the  pious,  who  have 
agreed  in  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 

All  this  I  most  freely  and  fully  admit.  I  will  only 
add,  that  the  fact  of  Christians  having  been  agreed  in  a 
doctrine,  is  not  sufficient  of  itself  to  make  the  reception 
of  it  consolatory.  It  must  prove,  on  examination,  to  be 
really  a  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  in  order  to  afford  the  con- 
solation which  we  may  receive  from  union  of  sentiment ; 
for  as  you  say,  however  extensively  and  unanimously  those 
who  bore  the  Christian  name  have  received  error,  it  is 
no  reason  for  our  admitting  it. 

So  far  then  as  the  simple  investigation  of  the  truth  is 
concerned,  in  respect  to  any  point  in  theology,  the  au- 
thority of  great  names  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  obliga- 
tory. And  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  it  will  not  prove  the  cor- 
rectness or  incorrectness  of  it,  to  show  that  the  early 
Christian  fathers  admitted  or  rejected  it.  In  discussion 
purely  theological,  therefore,  any  appeal  to  the  fathers 
might  well  be  spared. 

My  reasons  for  a  historical  investigation,  at  present, 
of  what  the  early  fathers  did  really  believe  and  teach 
in  regard  to  the  point  in  question,  may  be  briefly  stated. 
You  have  appealed  to  them,  with  full  persuasion  that 
their  sentiments  harmonized  with  yours.  Others  have 
often  done  the  same  ;  and  specially  since  the  publica- 
tion of  Bishop  Bull's  learned  work,  entitled  Dcfensio  Ft- 
dei  JVicaenae,  I  am  prepared  to  admit,  that  if  it  could 
be  shewn  that  the  early  fathers,  as  you  have  said,  p.  91, 
"  C07i5^an^/i/ declared  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  gene- 
ration was  to  be  believed,"  it  would  be  an  additional 
confirmation  of  the  doctrine  ;  because  it  would  serve  to 


J6  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS,  [LeT.    II, 

evince,  that  the  arguments  bj  which  it  is  supported 
were  so  plain  and  cogent,  that  a  general  assent  had  been 
compelled  to  them,  in  very  ancient  times.  But  since  my 
persuasion  is,  that  the  doctrine  cannot  be  established 
either  by  the  Scriptures,  or  by  principles  of  reasoning 
deduced  from  the  essential  predicates  of  the  Deity;  with 
my  present  views  I  should  decline  to  follow  the  opinion 
of  the  fathers,  provided  it  is  in  unison  with  yours.  Stilly 
I  feel  it  to  be  a  very  interesting  topic  of  examination. 
It  is  more  specially  so,  because,  although  as  Protestants 
we  do  not  admit  the  binding  authority  of  the  fathers, 
yet  the  belief  that  they  received  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation,  has  had  no  small  influence  in  fostering  a  con- 
fidence in  that  doctrine,  and  a  repugnance  to  any  opin- 
ion subversive  of  it.  It  is  on  this  ground,  I  must  beg 
the  liberty,  in  the  present  letter,  to  lay  before  you  the 
results  of  a  patristical  investigation  somewhat  extensive  ; 
in  order  that  I  may  remove,  if  possible,  from  the 
minds  of  those  who  may  read  these  letters,  the  ap- 
prehension that  I  am  endeavouring  to  overthrow  the 
faith  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  to  establish  a  novel  or 
heretical  opinion,  while  I  examine  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation,  and  endeavour  to  show  that  it  will  not  bear  the 
test  of  either  Scripture  or  reason. 

As  a  preliuiinary  step  then  to  the  discussion  which  is 
to  follow,  and  for  the  sake  of  preparing  the  vv?,y  for  an 
unprejudiced  judgment  respecting  the  point  in  question, 
you  will  permit  me  to  examine  whether  the  declaration 
which  you  have  made,  in  p.  91,  respecting  the  unanimity 
of  the  early  Christian  writers  in  the  belief  of  eternal 
generation,  is  well  grounded. 

We  shall  doubtless  be  agreed,  that  by  the  early  Chris- 
tian writers  is  meant,  the  Fathers  who  lived  before  the 


Let.  II  ]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  17 

Council  of  Nice  or  during  the  llirce  first  Centuries. 
This  is  a  fair  construction  of  the  term  early^  and  one 
which  is  generally  admitted.  At  any  rate,  we  shall 
agree,  that  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers,  during  this  peri- 
od, are  more  important  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  than  those  of  a  subsequent  date. 

I  begin,  then,  with  giving  the  result  of  my  investiga- 
tions respecting  the  three  first  Centuries.  It  is  this; 
viz.  that  the  great  body  of  the  early  and  influential  Chris- 
tian Fathers^  whose  works  are  extant,  believed  that  the 
Son  of  God  was  begotten  at  a  period  not  long  before  the 
creation  of  the  world  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  became 
a  separate  hypostasis,  at  or  near  the  time^  when  the  work 
of  creation  was  to  be  performed.  If  this  can  be  shewn, 
the  fact  that  they  believed  in  the  eternal  generation  of 
the  Son  of  God^  or  at  least,  their  unanimity  in  receiving 
this  doctrine,  cannot  surely  be  admitted. 

Before  I  proceed  to  adduce  testimonies  in  support  of 
this  allegation,  it  will  be  proper  to  remark,  that  I  intend 
to  confine  myself  solely  to  the  testimony,  which  relates 
to  two  inquiries  ;  viz.  Is  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God 
eternal  ?  And  is  that  generation  voluntary,  or  necessary. 
The  reason  why  I  comprise  the  latter  inquiry  is,  that 
in  your  Letters,  p.  87,  you  have  laid  such  important 
stress,  (as  many  others  have  done,)  upon  necessary  gene- 
ration, as  helping  to  remove  the  difficulties  that  lie  in  the 
way  of  admitting  the  doctrine  in  question. 

With  the  question,  whether  the  fathers  believed 
Christ  to  be  truly  a  divine  person  and  worshipped  him 
as  such,  I  am  not  now  at  all  concerned.  Of  course,  I 
shall  adduce  no  testimony  which  respects  their  opinion 
on  that  point,  except  what  may  be  necessarily  adduced, 
in  consequence  of  its  connexion  with  other  testiuiony 
relative  to  the  subject  before  us. 
4 


18  OPINMONS  OF  THE  EARLY   FATHERS.  [LeT.    IL 

The  historical  questions  before  us  are,  Did  the  early 
fathers  believe  the  filiation  or  generation  of  the  Son  of  God 
to  be  eternal,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  ivord  eternal'?  Or 
in  other  words,  Did  they  believe  that  the  Logos  was  not 
only  eternal,  but  that  he  was  Son  eternally  ?  And  did  the 
early  fathers  believe  this  generation  to  be  necessary  ? 

That  the  Logos  is  truly  eternal,  I  believe  with  all  my 
heart,  because,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  testimony  of 
Scripture  is  so  plain  and  unequivocal  on  this  point,  as  to 
admit  of  no  reasonable  doubt,  in  the  mind  of  a  man  who 
receives  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  and  the  unerring 
rule  of  faith.  That  the  Logos  was  eternally  the  Son  of 
God,  I  doubt ;  for  reasons  which  will  hereafter  be 
stated. 

1  have  made  this  statement  merely  to  show,  in  what 
manner  the  testimony  of  writers  relative  to  the  point  in 
question  is  to  be  estimated.  To  cay  of  Christ,  or  of  the 
Logos,  that  he  is  eternal,  is  saying  nothing  more,  than 
>vhat  all  who  acknowledge  the  divine  nature  of  the  Sa- 
viour of  course  must  say.  But  if  this  should  be  said  a 
thousand  times,  it  would  not  of  itself  prove  any  thing  in 
respect  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation.  It  would 
only  prove,  that  the  writer  or  speaker,  who  asserts  it, 
believes  Clirist  to  possess  a  divine  nature  ;  inasmuch  as 
he  assigns  to  him  one  of  the  attributes  of  the  Deity. 

This  very  plain  but  important  principle,  which  should 
be  applied  in  estimating  the  testimony  to  be  adduced, 
has  been  entirely  overloooked  by  Bishop  Bull,  in  his 
Dcfensio  Fidei  JYicaenae,  We  shall  find  frequent  occa- 
sion to  acknowledge  the  importance  of  the  principle,  in 
judging  of  patristical  testimony  ;  for  many  of  the  lead- 
ing Fathers,  while  they  believed  fully  in  the  eternity  of 
the  Logos,  considered  as  the  reason  or  understanding  of 


( 


Let.  II.]  Opinions  of  the  eaulv  fathers,  19 

the  Divine  Nature,  which  they  name  Xoyog  ev^ia&eiog 
i.  e.  the  internal  Logos,  maintained  that  he  became  Son, 
(^Aoyog  npo(popi)cog,  eternal,  produced,  or  generated  Logos,) 
at  or  near  the  time,  when  the  creation  of  the  world  took 
place.  Now  so  long  as  this  distinction  was  adopted,  and 
became  the  common  sentiment  of  the  Antenicene  fa- 
thers, merely  an  assertion  that  Christ,  or  the  Son, 
or  the  Logos  was  eternal,  cannot  be  regarded  as  testi- 
mony adequate  to  prove  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  o(  eter- 
nal generation  ;  unless  it  appears,  from  other  parts  of  a 
writer's  works,  that  he  really  maintained  this  doctrine. 
Above  all,  such  testimony  is  entirely  nugatory,  in  regard 
to  establishing  the  point  in  question,  if  the  writer  has 
expressly  declared  his  views,  in  regard  to  the  simple  an- 
temundane  (not  eternal)  generation  of  the  Son. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  adduce  our  testimony.  In  the 
Epistles  of  Clemens  Romanus,  (only  one  of  which  how- 
ever is  genuine  ;)  and  in  the  letter  of  Barnabas,  I  find 
nothing  which  has  any  bearing  upon  the  point  under  ex- 
amination. Indeed,  Bishop  Bull  himself,  familiar  as  he 
was  with  the  Fathers,  and  strenuous  as  he  was,  in  the 
highest  degree,  respecting  the  point  in  question,  has 
brought  forward  in  his  famous  chapter  De  Filio  owa'C- 
dtoi  cum  Patre,  but  one  solitary  passage  in  favour  of  eter- 
nal generation,  from  any  of  the  Fathers,  who  preceded 
Justin  Martyr,  This  is  from  the  epistles  of  Ignatius. 
In  its  proper  place,  I  shall  examine  it. 

In  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  a  writer  cotemporary 
witii  Clemens  Romanus,  there  are  some  passages  which 
seem  to  relate  to  the  point  in  question,  but  which 
Bishop  Bull  has  omitted.  "God,"  says  he,  "placed 
that  holy  Spirit,^  which  was  created  first  of  all,   in  the 

*  Maoy  of  the  early  Fathers  called  the  exalted  nature,  which 
they  attributed  to  Christ,  nvivf^iu  dytov. 


so  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.    H. 

body  in  which  he  might  dwell,  in  the  chosen  body 
which  seemed  proper  to  him."*  Again;  ''The  Son  of 
God  is  more  ancient  than  every  creature,  so  that  he  was 
present  in  council  with  his  Father,  when  the  world  was 
created."t 

That  the  phrase  holy  Spirit,  in  the  above  quotation, 
means  the  exalted  nature  which  dwelt  in  Christ,  there 
can  be  no  doubt ;  inasmuch  as  the  context  clearly  de- 
scribes the  incarnation  of  the  Saviour.  The  second  quo- 
tation seems  pretty  plainly  to  intimate  what  we  are  to 
understand  by  the  affirmation  of  Hermas  in  the  first, 
when  he  says  that  the  exalted  nature  of  Christ  was  cre- 
ated first  of  all ;  viz,  he  was  created  more  anciently  than 
every  creature,  ita  ut,  so  that,  {so  anciently  that,)  he  was 
present  in  the  counsels  of  the  Father,  at  the  creation,  &:c, 

I  make  but  one  remark  on  the  word  created,  as  appli- 
ed to  the  more  exalted  nature  of  the  Son.  The  early 
Fathers  were  not  grammarians  nor  philologists.  Nothing 
is  more  evident,  as  we  may  have  opportunity  to  see  in 
the  sequel,  than  that  many  of  the  Fathers  made  no  dif- 
ference between  the  words  creation  and  generation,  when 
applied  to  the  Son.  It  was  not  until  near  the  time  of 
Arius,  that  the  word  creation  became  limited  to  a  strict 
sense  in  relation  to  the  origin  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  be- 
came the  subject  of  warm  and  protracted  dispute. 

*  Ilhira  spiritum  Sanctum,  qui  creatus  est  omnium  primus,  in  cor- 
pore  in  quo  habitaret  deus  collocavit ;  in  delecto  corpore  quod  ei 
vidcbatur.  Simil.  V,  §  6.  Such  is  the  reading  which  Roesler  gives, 
from  a  choice  of  the  varieties  in  the  best  MSS.  (Bibhoth.  B.  I.)  In 
Cotelerius,  (Tom.  I.  p.  107)  the  text  stands  somewhat  differently  . 
but  the  varieties  of  the  principal  MSS.  are  exhibited  in  the  margin, 
the  best  of  which  give  the  text  above. 

t  Filius  quidem  Dei  omni  creatura  antiquior  est,  ita  ut  in  consilio 
Patri  suo  adfuerit,  ad  condendam  creaturam.  Simil  IX.  §12.  Co- 
teler.  Tom.  I.  p.  118. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  21 

I  will  not  say,  that  the  sentiments  of  Hernias  are  al- 
together clear,  in  respect  to  the  simple  antemundane^ 
generation  or  creation  of  the  Son  of  God.  Thus  much 
however  is  clear,  that  they  appear  to  be  irreconcileable 
with  the  absolute  eternity  of  filiation.  We  shall  see,  in 
the  sequel,  that  the  natural  explanation  which  they  ad- 
mit coincides  altogether  with  the  predominant  opinion 
of  the  Antenicene  Fathers. 


IGISrATIUS. 

We  come  next  to  the  Letters  of  Ignatius,  bishop  of 
Antioch,  who  flourished  about  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury.    Of  the   fifteen  letters  which  bear  his  name,  only 
seven  have  met  with  reception    among  the   learned  as 
genuine.    These  also  have  been  doubted  by  some  of  the 
I    most  able  critics  and  ecclesiastical  historians.      Calvin, 
'    the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  Blondell,  Salmasius,  Daille 
i    Semler,  Ernesti,  Roesler,  and  many  others  have  rejected 
i    them  as  spurious;    and,  to  say  the  least,  their  authentic- 
ity is  altogether  of  so  doubtful  a  nature,  that  no  certain 
I    reliance  can   be  placed  on  them.     Of  course,  we  cannot 
I   be  sure  that  we  have,  in  them,  the  real  views  of  Igna- 
1    tius  himself. 

I         I  will  limit  myself  to  a  few  remarks  on  the  passage 

I    quoted   from  them  by  Bishop  Bull,   in  commenting   on 

j    which  he  has  occupied  twelve  folio  pages.  The  passage 

follows  :  "  There  is  one  God  who   revealed   himself  by 

Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  who  is  his  eternal  Logos,  not  pro- 

*  I  use  the  word  aniemundane^  to  signify  what  took  place  within 
some  limited  period  before  the  creation,  but  not  to  designate,  even 
by  imphcation,  what  is  properly  eternal.  I  do  tiiis  merely  to  avoid 
circumlocution,  and  to  save  time. 


V 


22  OriMON5  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  II. 

ceeding  from  Silence."*  If  we  grant  that  the  latter 
clause,  "  not  proceeding  from  Silence,"  is  opposed,  as 
the  Bishop  has  endeavoured  to  show,  to  some  of  the 
Gnostic  doctrines,  which  taught  that  the  Logos  was  a 
secondary  emanation  from  -iV//;  or  Silence  ;  the  objec- 
tion to  the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  made  because  it 
has  been  supposed  to  refer  to  the  errors  of  Valentine, 
who  was  of  a  later  age  than  Ignatius,  may  be  removed. 
But  whether  this  is  to  be  granted,  is  matter  of  contro- 
versy. 

That  the  Logos  is  eternal,  {(aSto?^^  the  writer  of  this 
Epistle  plainly  asserts;  but  that  the  generation  or  pro- 
cession of  the  Logos  Is  eternal.  Is  not  asserted.  Wheth- 
er he  supposed  him  to  be  eternal  as  immanent  [evdiatha- 
lOQy)  or  as  emanated  {nQo(poQixoQ^)  does  not  appear  from 
this  passage.  From  another  passage  In  the  same  Let- 
ter, cited  In  the  note  below,  the  former  is  the  most  pro- 
bable. 

Two  special  difficulties  lie  In  the  way,  then,  of  finding 
among  the  early  fathers  support  for  the  doctrine  in 
question,  from  the  passage  under  review.  The  first, 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  ablest  patrlstlcal  critics 
deny  or  strongly  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles 
ascribed  to  Ignatius  ;  the  second,  that  admitting  their 
genuineness,  the  proof  from  the  passage  quoted  can,  at 
best,  be  regarded  as  only  of  a  very  doubtful  nature. 

\i  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  rea- 
sons why  the  passage  in  question  should  receive  such  a 
construction,  as  I  have  given  to  it,  the  testimony  hereaf- 

*  'Ei?  dfog  ((Tztv.  6  q^ai'focoGccg  tavrov  dta  /tjaov  Xqcgtov  tov  vtov 
avTOv,  og  aonv  ccvrov  loyog  a'idtog,  ov/,  ccrco  ^tp]?  TiQoeXdojv.  Epist. 
ad  Mugnes.  §  8.  In  another  place,  (§  6  of  the  saaie  Letter,)  he  says, 
Xgiarog  og  ttqo  unovov  nocgoi  naxoL  ijv. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  23 

ter  to  be  adduced  from  other  Fathers  will  probably  dis- 
sipate this  doubt. 

JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

This  distinguished  Father,  a  native  of  Flavia  Neapo- 
lis  in  Samaria,  and  a  heathen  philosopher  before  his 
conversion  to  Christianity,  flourished  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  Century,  and  died  in  A.  D.  165,  as  a  mar- 
tyr to  the  Christian  religion.  Of  the  various  works  at- 
tributed to  him,  his  two  Apologies  for  Christianity,  and 
his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  are  the  most  im[)or- 
tant,  and  the  only  ones  of  which  the  genuineness  is  in 
any  good  degree  certain. 

I  proceed  to  develope  the  evidences  of  his  opinion,  in 
respect  to  the  generation  of  the  Son.  "  God,"  says  he, 
"  in  the  beginning,  before  any  thing  was  created,  begat 
a  Rational  Power,  [dWa^iv  Aoyix?jv)  from  himself;  which 
is  called  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  Glory  of  the  Lord,  and 
sometimes  Son,  Wisdom,  Angel,  God,  Lord,  Logos. 
Sometimes  also  he  calls  him  Leader,  {ap/toTpanfyoy.) 
In  the  form  of  a  man  he  appeared  to  Joshua,  the  son  of 
Nun.  All  the  above  names  he  bears,  because  he  min- 
isters to  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  was  begotten  by  the 
will  of  the  Father,^''*     To  show  the  probability  of  this, 

*  — f^QXV^'i  '^Q^  7iC(VT0)v  Tojv  HTiG^aT(ov,  6  Giog  ytyavvri'/.i:  dvvafiiv 

Tivu  {'^    iavzov    koyi'/.tjv ^Z***'     y^Q    tiuvtu   ■nQOGOvo^o.^ioOui, 

«>c  te  TOV  vnijQiTiiv  to>  nciTQi'Ab)  (3 ovhji^i art,  y.uc  6X  zov  uno  xov 
nargog  &ih]aic  y^yevviioSuL.  Dialog,  cum  Try  phone,  §  61,  p. 
157.  edit.  Ib4^.  it  may  be  proper  to  observe  here,  once  for  all,  that 
(to  save  time  and  paper)  only  the  more  important  parts  of  the  origi- 
nals are  quoted  in  the  Notes.  Of  parts  omitted,  notice  is  given  by  a 
Dash.  If  any  reader  doubts  the  correctness  of  the  translation,  as  to 
passages  the  original  of  which  is  omitted,  he  has  the  means  of  cor- 
recting it  placed  in  his  power,  by  uniform  retcrence  to  the  place", 
where  the  whole  passages  extracted  may  be  found. 


24  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY   FATHERS.  [LeT.  II. 

he  then  proceeds  ;  "  Something  Hke  this,  we  see  hap- 
pens to  ourselves.  When  we  utter  a  reasonable  word, 
we  beget  reason  (^Aoyoi^  y)  but  not  by  abscission  (or/ioro- 
f^tp'y)  so  that  our  reason  is  diminished.  Another  thing 
like  this  we  see,  in  respect  to  fire  ;  which  sutlers  no  di- 
minution by  kindling  another  fire,  but  still  remains  the 
same."* 

Two  points  are  here  clearly  asserted.  First,  the  Lo- 
gos^ before  creation,  icas  produced  or  generated  from  God, 
e^  iavTov ;  and  secondly,  he  was  begotten  (not  necessari- 
ly, but)  by  the  will  of  the  Father.  The  simile  which  fol- 
lows the  first  statement,  makes  Justin's  conceptions  on 
the  subject  of  the  Logos  very  plain.  He  was  in  the 
Father,  before  his  birth  or  generation,  as  reason  is  in 
us,  which  originates  language  ;  i.  e.  he  was  originally 
Logos  immanent,  (Aoyog  erdiaOfrog,  as  he  w^as  soon  after 
called  by  other  Fathers,  who  adopted  Justin's  views;) 
but  before  the  creation,  he  was  begotten,  produced  out 
of  the  Father,  as  a  word  which  originates  from  reason 
is  uttered;  and  thus  became  Son  of  God,  or  Aoyog  ngo- 
(fo^aiog. 

The  Logos  was  undoubtedly  believed  by  Justin  to  be 
eternaL  But  he  was  eternal  as  the  Reason  or  Under- 
standing of  the  Father  ;  not  eternally  begotten.  If  there 
be  aiiy  doubt  left  here,  as  to  Justin's  views,  the  follow- 
ing passage  will  dissipate  it.  "  The  Father  of  the  uni- 
verse, who  is  unbegotten,  has  no  name;  for  to  have  a 
proper  name,  implies  that  there  is  one  antecedent  to  the 

*  As  this  is  mere  explanation,  it  is  unnecessary  to  cite  tiie  Greek. 
The  all'  of,  which  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  of  this  pas- 
sage, is  undoubtedly  spurious  ;  or  if  not  so,  it  is  to  be  read  interrogative- 
ly, as  in  the  London  edition.  See  the  Note  on  it  in  the  Benedictine 
edition,  from  which  I  g^uote. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  35 

person  named,  who  has  given  the  appellation.  For  the 
titles,  Father,  God,  Creator,  Lord,  Sovereign,  are  not 
properly  names,  but  appellations  deduced  from  his  be- 
neficence and  his  operations.  But  his  Son,  v^ho  only  is 
properly  called  Son,  the  Logos,  who  existed  with  him  Ae- 
fore  the  creation,  and  was  generated  when  (ot^)  in  the  be- 
ginning he  created  and  adorned  all  things  by  him,  is  called 
Christ,  because  God  anointed  and  adorned  all  things  by 
him. 


95^ 


This  passage  leaves  no  room  for  doubt.  The  Father 
can  have  no  name,  because  no  being  existed  before  him 
to  give  it.  The  Son  can  properly  have  a  name  ;  for  he 
was  begotten  in  time,  i.e.  at  or  near  the  creation  of  the 
world,  which  was  accomplished  by  him.  The  immanent 
Logos  seems  to  be  acknowledged  as  eternal^  but  his 
generation  is  definitely  stated  tobeonly  antemundane.  He 
was  avvcov,  coexisting  with  the  Father,  or  existing  in 
him,  before  the  creation ;  but  yevvcofievog  begotten  in  time, 
or  when  (oxa)  the  act  of  creation  was  about  to  be  per- 
formed. 

In  conformity  with  this,  Justin,  in  his  second  Apology, 
speaks  of  the  Logos  GnepfiaTixog,  i.  e.  begotten,  seminal^ 
in  distinction,  as  it  would  seem,  from  the  Logos  in  his 
previous  state,  or  before  his  birth.  The  passage,  in 
which  the  appellation  stands,  is  one  where  Justin  de- 
clares that  the  Logos,  or  rather  portions  of  the  Logos 
or  Reason,  have  dwelt  in  all  distinguished  men  of  eve- 
ry age  and  nation,  who  have  spoken  or  written  well. 
"  It  is  the  Christ,  the  first-born  of  God who  is  the 

*  0  Sf  viog  eTitivov,  6  fiovog  Xfyofievog  nvgiojg  viog,  6  Xoyog  ttqo 
Tcov  nGi}]fAaTO)v  xuL  Gvvojv,  '/Mi  yivvojfiivog  6t€  xriv  ag^^^v  dt   au- 
Tov  Tiavxa  eaxKie  'AOf.i  iY,o(5^ri(ii,  Xoiatog,  n.  z.  A.     Apol.  II.  §  6. 
5 


26  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.    II' 

Logos,  of  wliich  all  men  are  partakers."*  ^Tifp/uariTtog, 
then,  is  evidently  an  epithet  intended  to  designate  the 
Logos  as  begotten,  or  the  Jirst  born  of  God. 

One  other  passage,  to  conlirm  the  fact  that  Justin 
viewed  the  generation  of  the  Son  as  proceedingyrom  the 
ivlll  of  the  Father,  and  therefore  not  as  necessary,  "  We 
have  the  Son  of  God  described  in  the  memoirs  of  the 
Apostles  ;  and  we  call  him  the  Son  of  God,  and  consid- 
er him  as  coming  forth  (irpofAO^ovra,  issuing  out)  from 
the  Father,  before  the  creation,  by  his  power  and  wilL^^t 

With  Justin's  sentiments  on  the  real  and  proper  di- 
vinity of  the  Logos,  I  am  not  now  concerned;  and  shall 
not  therefore  say  any  thing  here  respecting  them.  My 
business  is  not  to  examine  his  creed  in  general ;  but  on- 
ly whether  he  believed  in  the  eternal  and  necessary  gen- 
eration of  the  Son.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  Bishop 
Bull  should  have  quoted  the  passage  just  cited  above 
from  the  Second  Apology  of  Justin,  (§  6,)  to  prove  that 
this  father  believed  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation^ 
which  clearly  establishes  the  fact,  that  he  was  of  the 
opposite  opinion.  But  there  is,  indeed,  no  difficulty  in 
coming  to  such  a  conclusion,  if  one  may  take  the  liber- 
ties, which  the  Bishop  has  taken,  with  the  text  of  his 
author.  The  words,  6  de  viog  cxsivovy  6  fjLovog  Asyofxsrog 
7<vpioK  vioQ^  &c,  he  translates,  "  Porro  filius  ejus,  qui  so- 
lus proprie  dicitur  filius,  Verbum  simul  cum  illo  ante  cre- 
aturas  et  existens  et  nascens,  quoniam  primitus  per  eum 
cuncta  condidit,"  &:c.  And  in  his  comment  he  says,  "  In 
his  verbis  docet  Justinus,  Deo  Patri  et  Filio  nullum  pro- 
prie nomen  competere,  sed  tantum  appellationes  quas- 

*  Apol.  II.  §  13. 

t  v£voi]'AUf.iev  y.ac  ttqo  ttuvtov  tioiij^iixtmv  ano  tov  nargog  8v- 
vafiei  avTOv  zuc  ^ovh]  nQotldovra'  z.  i.  K.  Dial,  cum  Trypho. 
§  100. 


Let.  II.]         OPINIONS  of  the  earlv  fathers.  27 

dam  ab  ipsorum  beneficlis  et  operibus  pctltas,  ipsis  a  no- 
bis tribui.  Hujus  autem  assertlonls  ratlonem  banc  af- 
fert,  quod  Deus  Pater  ingenitus  atque  eternus  sit  ;  Fil- 
ius  vero  ut  Verbum  ejus  ipsi  coexistat,  ac  prolride  uter- 
que  neminem  habeat  so  antiquiorem,  qui  ipsi  nomeii 
imposuit." 

Very  different  from  the  Bishop's  translation  is  that  of 
the  learned  Benedictine,  the  editor  of  Justin.  Instead 
of  "  Verbum  simid  cum  illo  ante  creaturas  existens  et 
nascens,  quoniaim  primitus  per  eum  condidit,"  we  have 
nearly  an  exact  version  of  the  Greek;"  Verbum  antequam 
mundus  crearetur,  quod  et  una  cum  eo  aderat,  et  geni- 
tum  est,  CUM  per  illud  initio  omnia  condidit,"  &c.  Instead 
of  translating,  then,  as  the  Greek  runs,  begotten  when 
{ois)  in  the  beginning  he  created  all  things  by  him,  the 
Bishop  has  contrived  to  throw  back  the  word  begotten 
upon  the  preceding  clause,  for  the  sake  of  joining  it  with 
npo  Tcov  noii^fiaicov,  and  so  rendered  ante  creaturas  et  ex- 
istens et  nascens,  both  existing  and  born  bejhre  creation ; 
while  OT6  has  been  converted  by  him  into  on,  and  ren- 
dered by  the  patristic  Latin  conjunction  quoniam  in  the 
sense  of  because  or  since.  For  his  manner  of  pointing 
the  sentence  some  apology  might  be  made  ;  because,  by 
itself  considered,  it  is  a  possible  construction.  For 
changing  the  text  without  any  authority  or  necessity,  all 
apology  is  out  of  question. 

But  the  comment  is,  if  possible,  more  against  the 
spirit  of  Justin,  than  the  version.  Justin  says  that  the 
Father  has  no  name,  because  he  is  unbegotten  and  has  no 
predecessor  to  name  him  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Son  has  a  name,  as  he  is  begotten  in  time,  and  his  name 
is  derived  from  his  anointing  the  creation.  The  Bishop 
says,  "  By  these   words  Justin   teaches,    that  no  name 


28  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS,  [LeT.  IK 

properly  belongs  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  that 
onlj  certain  appellations  are  attributed  to  them  by  us,  as 
derived  from  their  beneficence  and  their  operations." — 
But  Justin  says  this  only  of  the  Father ;  and  places  the 
case  of  the  Son  in  direct  antithesis  to  all  this. 

Again ;  the  reason  why  no  name  is  given  to  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  the  Bishop  represents  to  be,  that  "  the 
Father  is  unbegotten  and  eternal — and  the  Son  is  his 
coexistent  Word  ;  and  therefore,  neither  has  any  one 
more  ancient  than  himself,  who  could  impose  a  name 
upon  him."  Whereas  Justin  Martyr  not  only  asserts 
that  the  Son  is  properly  named,  but  assigns  the  reason 
of  it,  by  alleging  the  fact,  that  he  was  "  begotten  when 
the  world  was  created." 

The  Bishop  then  proceeds  to  quote  a  long  passage  from 
Justin's  Cohortatio  ad  Graecos,  (the  genuineness  of  the 
Cohortation  is  disputed,)  the  object  of  which  is  to  show, 
that  when  Jehovah  revealed  himself  to  Moses,  he  did 
not  call  himself  by  any  name,  and  properly  could  have 
none.  He  only  said,  1  am  that  I  am.  Now  as  Justin,  in 
his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  maintains  that  the  Logos  only 
was  revealed  to  the  Patriarchs,  Bishop  Bull  concludes 
that  Justin  must  have  held,  that  the  unknown  Name, 
(if  I  may  so  speak)  belonged  to  the  Son,  and  that  there- 
fore he  was  regarded  by  Justin  as  eternal. 

If  the  passage  were  known  to  be  genuine  ;  and  Justin 
could  be  proved  to  be  always  a  reasoner,  whom  later 
writers,  with  more  purified  and  elevated  ideas  of  the 
nature  of  the  divine  Being,  would  call  consistent  ^  the 
conclusion  of  Bishop  Bull  might  be  admitted.  But  if  we 
do  admit  it,  it  does  not  touch  the  point  in  question. 
That  the  Logos  was  eternal  as  immanent,  there  can  be 
little  or  no  doubt  Justin  believed.     But  that    he   was 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  29 

generated  from  eternity,  never,  I  apprehend, once  entered 
Justin's  mind;  or  if  it  did,  his  hinguagc  appears  to  speak, 
by  every  fair  rule  of  construction,  an  opinion  directly 
the  reverse. 

One  other  passage   the    Bishop   has  quoted,  from  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus  ;  (the  authenticity  of  which  epistle 
is  generally  denied,  or  doubted.)     In  this,  it  is  said  of  the 
Son,  ovios  6  aaiy   a^^fifpov  vtog  AoytoOeig,      In    the    same 
passage,  a  few  words  before,  it  is  said  of  this  same  Lo- 
I  gos,  xaivoQ  fav6i?y  who  appeared  anew  ;  how   or  where  is 
I  not  declared,  for   there   is  a  hiatus  in  the  text  immedi- 
I  ately  after.     But  the  words  immediately  antecedent  are 
j  6  an  ccQ'/^i^g ',  so  that  the  sense  seems  to  be.  He  who  was 
\  from  the  beginnings  appeared  anew,  (probably  to  the  pa- 
!   triarchs,  kc.)  The  sequel  is,  For  he  is  continually  produced 
[or  begotten]  anew  in  the  hearts  of  the  saints.     Then  fol- 
)  lows  6  ovTog  aei^  cT^/uepov  vtog  Aopio&eig  ^   from  which  I 
should  derive,  as  before,  a  view  of  the  sentiments  of  the 
writer,  directly  opposite  to  that  which  the   Bishop  has 
derived — viz,  the  Logos  {evdiad^eiog)  is  eternal,  as  to  his 
existence;    but  in  regard  to  his  Sonship,  vtog  Aoytoi^eig 
he  is  reckoned  Son  oi^fxegov,  at  present,  to-day.    This  senti- 
ment coincides,  whoever  was  the  writer,  with  the  views 
of  Justin  as  already  given. 

Such  are  Bishop  Bull's  proofs  of  eternal  generation 
from  Justin.  Why  he  should  have  passed  over  in  si- 
lence all  the  passages  which  militate  so  directly,  or  at 
least  seem  to  militate  so  directly,  against  the  assertion 
that  Justin  held  this  doctrine,  is  a  question  which  I  shall 
not  undertake  to  answer. 

The  principal  passage  of  Scripture,  which  seems  to 
have  led  Justin  to  his  views  respecting  the  generation  of 
the  Logos,    is  found  in  Prov.  8  :  22 ;  for  of  the   ^c\y 


30  OPIMONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.    II. 

Testament,  he  has  made  no  use  in  proving  his  doctrines. 
This  passage,  according  to  the  Septuagint  translation 
which  Justin  used,  runs  thus  ;  "  In  the  beginning  of  his 
Avajs,  the  Lord  created  me  for  his  works."  It  is  a  part 
of  the  beautiful  prosopopeia  of  wisdom,  which  the  chap- 
ter contains  to  which  this  verse  refers  ;  and  which  Jus- 
tin, with  almost  all  the  Christian  Fathers,  applied  to  the 
Logos.  As  Justin  knew  nothing  of  the  original  Hebrew, 
he  possessed  no  means  of  correcting  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  this  passage  ;  and  therefore  built  his  speculations 
about  the  generation  of  the  Logos  upon  it.  He  appears 
to  have  taken  no  offence  at  the  word  created  {exnae) 
here  ;  nor  did  the  early  Fathers  consider  it  a  matter  of 
importance,  v»^hether  they  used  the  word  exrtoe  or  eyer- 
I'ifae  ;  for  they  had  not  yet  learned  the  art  of  logoma- 
chy, so  well  as  it  was  understood  in  after  ages. 

The  Hebrew  of  this  passage  runs  thus  ;  "  Jehovah 
POSSESSED  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way;  before  his 
works,  even  from  ancient  time  (^i^!D)."  Even  after  Ori- 
gen  had  shown  the  diiference  between  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Hebrew,  the  Fathers  still  continued  to  use  the 
Greek  text  with  ^xjiae  in  it ;  a  proof  that  speculation  on 
the  definite  sense  of  this  word,  had  not  yet  come  into 
vogue  ;  but  not  a  proof,  as  any  one  versed  in  a  moderate 
degree  with  the  patristical  dialect  will  see,  that  the  Fa- 
thers believed  as  Arius  did,  that  the  Logos  was  properly 
a  created  being.  In  the  same  passage,  they  use  indis- 
criminately exiiof,  and  eytwrjuej  as  applied  to  the  Son^ 
commuting  the  one  for  the  other. 


I 


Let.  II.]         OPINIONS  op  the  early  fathers.  31 


ATHENAGORAS 

was  at  first  an  Athenian  philosopher.  He  became  a 
convert  to  Christianity  about  A.  D.  150  ;  and  wrote  his 
Apology,  (//^£(7/?6«a,  Legatio,)  addressed  to  the  Empe- 
ror Marcus  Aurelius  and  his  son  Commodus,  about  A. 
D.  177. 

In  this  Apology,  §  10_,  stands  the  following  remarka- 
ble passage.  "  I  have  sufficiently  proved  that  we 
(Christians,)  are  not  atheists,  who  believe  in  one  eternal 
God,  unbegotten,  invisible,  impassible,  incomprehensible, 
known  only  by  reason  and  understanding,  surrounded 
by  light,  and  beauty,  and  spirit,  and  indescribable  power; 
who  by  his  Word,  created,  adorned,  and  preserves  all 
things.  We  acknowledge  also,  a  Son  of  God.  Nor  must 
any  one  think  it  ridiculous,  that  God  should  have  a  Son. 
For  not  as  the  poets  feign,  who  exhibit  gods  nothing 
better  than  men,  do  we  think,  either  concerning  God  the 
Father,  or  concerning  the  Son.  But  the  Son  of  God  is 
the  Word  of  the  Father,  in  idea  and  in  operation  ;  for 
by  him  and  through  him  were  all  things  made,  inas- 
much as  the  Father  and  Son  are  one.  The  Son,  more- 
over, being  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son, 
by  a  oneness  and  energy  of  spirit ;  the  Son  of  God 
is   the  understanding  and  reason  {voug  Teat  /oyog)  of  the 

Father. What  the  Son  is,  I  will  briefly  declare.   He 

is  the  first  progeny  {yevvr^}.ia)  of  the  Father,  not  as  made, 
(for  God,  from  the  first,  being  eternal  understanding, 
vovQy  had  the  Logos  in  himself,  being  eternally  a  reason- 
able Intelligence  ;)  but  he  came  forth  to  be  the  idea  and 
operation  of  all  material  things .     With  this  account. 


32  OPINIONS  OP  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.    11. 

agrees  the  Spirit  of  prophecy.  The  Lord,  saith  he, 
created  mc  in  the  beginning  of  his  ways,  for  his  works."* 

If  some  parts  of  this  be  unintelligible,  I  hope  the 
fault  is  not  in  the  translator,  who  has  endeavoured,  as 
closely  as  possible,  to  follow  his  original.  The  Bene- 
dictine Editor,  Roesler,  Martini,  Lindner,  all  complain 
of  the  obscurity  of  some  of  the  phrases  in  the  original. 
What  concerns  us,  however,  is  sufficiently  plain  ;  at 
least,  as  it  appears  to  me.  The  first  born  of  God  is  not 
to  be  considered  as  made^  like  the  creation,  or  other  in- 
tehigences;  for  he  existed  eternally  in  God  as  his  vovq 
7(ai  Aoyog,  understanding  and  reason.  But  he  came  forth 
{TT^oaXi^cov)  to  be  the  idea  and  operation,  i.  e.  the  devi- 
ser and  maker,  of  all  material  things.  In  proof  of  this, 
the  same  passage  is  cited,  from  Proverbs  8  :  22,  to  which 
Justin  appeals,  for  confirmation  of  his  views  ;  a  passage 
which,  supposing  wisdom  to  mean  the  Logos,  and  that 
the  Septuagint  Version  is  correct,  (as  Justin,  Athenago- 
ras,  and  other  Christian  Fathers  believed,)  is  well  adapt- 
ed to  give  countenance  to  their  theory  respecting  the 
generation,  or  hypostatical  origin  of  the  Son. 

Bishop  Bull  has  made  strenuous  efforts,  (0pp.  pp.  203 
— 208,)  to  vindicate  the  passage  in  question  from  the 
sense  just  given  of  it.     But   Petavius,  Huet,   and  many 

*  iOTiv  6  viog  Tov  660V  Xoyog  rov  nargog  sv  idfcc  -aglv  iveyytia,  ngog 
avTOv  [avTOv]  ycg,  aav  do  avTOv,  navxa  eysv€TO,  ivog  ovrog  tov  ncc- 
TQog  ^cii  TOV  vtov.  OvTog  de  tov  viov  6v  nuTgi,  v.aL  noLTgog  fv  vuOf 
ivoTi]Ti  ^av  dvi'dif-iei  nvm^aTog,  vovg  yiui  loyog  rov  Tcaxgog  6  viog  tov 

deov 0  naig  tv  (jovXeTUi,  sgco  dice  ^(jux^lmv.    TIgoiTOv  yivvrjf.ia 

aval  TQ>  nuTgt,  ov/  cog  y^.vof.i€vov,  if'S  ug^ng  yag  6  6(og,  vovg  u'l'dtog 
oji/,  ir/ev  avTog  ef  tavTta  tov  koyor,  ai'dtojg  loyiv.og  o)v)  u)X   (og  twv 

vXtiiOiv  ^v^inuuTOiv idfu  accc  6fegyeta  eivui  ngoiXdtav^    y..  t.  A, 

Athenag-.  Leg'atio,  §  10.  p.  286,  287. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  or  the  early  fathers.  33 

others,  who  have  maintained  tlie  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation,  have  accused  Athenagoras  of  heresy,  on  ac- 
count of  the  passage  just  quoted,  because,  as  they  aver,  he 
plainly  teaches  that  the  generation  of  the  Son  was  sina- 
ply  antemundane.  The  principal  part  of  the  Bishop's 
defence  of  Athenagoras'  orthodoxy,  rests  on  some  hy- 
percritical distinctions  of  a  speculative  and  metaphysical 
nature,  which  he  contends  Athenagoras  must  have  had 
in  his  mind.  They  amount  to  this.  In  every  reasona- 
ble being  who  thinks,  mental  words  are  the  necessary 
accompaniment  of  the  act  of  thinking;  i.  e.  they  are,  so 
to  speak,  the  sons  of  the  faculty  of  reason.  Words  spok- 
en are  only  external  copies  of  internal  mental  words. 
Like  to  this,  is  the  origin  of  the  Logos.  He  was  from 
eternity  the  mental  ivord^  and  therefore  distinct  from  the 
vovg  which  produced  this  word,  (i.  e.  a  separate  hypos- 
tasis;)  while,  at  the  creation,  he  was  revealed  or  made 
his  appearance  externally. 

The  the  theory  is  ingenious  enough;  and  seems  to 
have  been  first  hit  upon  by  Tertullian,  in  his  book 
against  Praxeas,  chap.  5.  But  I  am  unable  to  find  any 
support  of  it,  in  the  passage  of  Athenagoras,  under  con- 
sideration. On  the  contrary,  he  expressly  declaree,  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  the  voug  Ttai  Aoyog  of  the  Father;  and 
that  God  being  eternally  vovg  had  therefore  the  Aoyog  in 
himself,  who  came  forth,  npoeAd^cor,  at  the  formation  of  the 
Avorld.  Then  he  was  the  ifha,  pattern,  type,  deviser 
of  the  creation  ;  and  the  a^cpyua,  operation,  i.  e.  operat- 
ing power  which  effected  the  work  ;  for  so,  with  the 
Benedictine  editor,  Roesler,  Martini,  and  Muenscher,  I 
believe  this  apparently  obscure  phrase  is  to  be  explained. 
6 


34  OPINIONS  OF   THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  II. 


TATIAN. 

This  father  was  an  Assyrian  by  birth,  and  was  devot- 
ed, in  early  life,  to  the  study  of  the  Greek  philosophy. 
After  becoming  a  convert  to  the  Christian  religion,  he 
wrote  his  Address  to  the  Greeks,  about  A.  D.  172.  From 
this  work,  the  following  passage  is  extracted. 

"  God  was  the  beginning.  By  a^y^v  we  understand 
the  power  of  the  Logos.  For  the  Lord  of  the  universe, 
being  himself  the  substance  of  all  things,  whilst  as  yet 
nothing  was  created,  existed  alone.  In  so  far  as  he  pos- 
sessed all  power  and  was  the  substance,  [vRoaxaoiQ,  the 
original  cause  or  ground)  of  things  visible  and  invisible, 
all  things  were  with  [in]  him.  With  him,  also,  by  vir- 
tue of  his  rational  power^  existed  the  Logos  himself,  who 
ivas  in  him.  But  by  his  ivill,  the  Logos  leaped  Jorth  from 
his  simple  being ;  and  not  going  into  an  empty  sound,  he 
became  the  first  born  work  of  the  Father.  This  we 
know  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  world.  He  became 
[the  first  born  work]  by  communication,  not  by  abscis- 
sion ;  for  what  is  abscinded,  is  separated  from  that 
whence  it  is  abscinded.     But  that  which  is  derived  by 

communication does  not  diminish  that  from    wiiich 

it  is  taken.  From  one  torch  we  may  light  many  torch- 
es, and  still  the  light  of  the  first  torch  is  not  diminished. 
So  when  the  Logos  proceeded  [came  forth]  from  the 
power  of  the  Father,  it  did  not  deprive  him  who  begat 
the  Logos  of  reason.  Even  so,  I  speak  and  you  hear 
me ;  and  yet  by  the  transition  of  my  word  to  you,  I  who 
speak  am  not  at  all  deprived  of  the  faculty  of  reason."* 

*  Biog '/.ara   (.i^v   ficdrino)  y{yivv7]fiev7jv  noLtiavv  fxovog  t]v. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  35 

I  have  given  as  literal  a  translation  as  I  was  able  to 
make.  The  necessity  of  all  comment  on  this  passage  is 
superseded.  The  similies  made  use  of  show,  beyond  a 
doubt,  that  Tatian  had  uttered  something  respecting 
the  rise  of  the  Logos,  which  he  supposed  his  readers 
would,  without  some  explanation,  view  as  interfering 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  immutability.  The  ex- 
istence of  the  Logos  in  God  from  eternity,  his  leaping 
forth,  (^iiponeda)  by  the  divine  will,  and  becoming  the 
first  born  work  of  God^  are  drawn  in  colours  so  graphic, 
that  all  the  zeal,  ability,  and  learning  of  Bull  (Opera  pp. 
209 — 213,)  and  the  etforts  of  the  Benedictine  editor 
himself,  have  not  been  able  to  obscure  the  fact,  that 
Tatian  was  no  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  eternal  gene- 
ration. 

In  confirmation  of  this,  besides  the  passage  itself, 
(the  text  of  which  the  Benedictine  has  altered,  without 
authority,  and  the  translation  of  which  Bishop  Bull  has 
accommodated  to  his  own  purposes,)  the  additional  con- 
sideration may  be  stated,  that  Tatian  was  a  disciple  of 
Justin  Martyr,  and  most  probably  agreed  with  his  mas- 
ter. And  Justin  so  clearly  teaches  the  antemundane 
generation  of  the  Son,  that  the  Benedictine  editor  is 
candid  enough  to  acknowledge  it,  in  his  notes  to  some  of 
the  passages  above  cited. 

Ka&o  Se  nuaa  Swafiig,  OQttxwv  re  aai  aogarcov  avrog  vnoaraGig  tjv, 
(jvv  aiTW  ra  navra.  Hvv  uvtm  yuQ  dia  loyia^g  dvvufifojg,  avtog  xai 
6  loyog,  6g  nv  iv  avuo,  vntorriGe,  Sihif^aTi  da  Trjg  dnloTfjiog  avrov 
TiQomjda  Xoyog.     '  O  df  Xoyog  ov  Ttatcc  afvov  yMQ^aag  egyov  nQwro- 

Toxov  Tov  Tcargog  yi^vfiai,.      Tovtov  lOiufvTOV  xoa^iov  Tt;i/  (xqxv^ 

ovTCo  xac  6  Xoyog  uQoeXi^Mv  en  tov  nuxQog  dvva/Aioyg,  ova  aloyov  nt- 
noifjKS  TOV  ye  ytw^jnoTa.  x.  t.  A.  Tatiani  Orat.  contra  Graecos,  §  5. 
pp.  247,  248. 


36  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY   FATHERS.  [LeT.  11. 


THEOPHILUS. 

This  writer  was  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  wrote  three 
books  in  defence  of  Christianity,  which  he  addressed  to 
one  Autoljcus.  Shroeckh  assigns  these  books  to  the 
{3eriod  between  A.  D.  170  and  180;  Wolf  to  180—183. 

The  following  passages  relate  to  the  subject  in  ques- 
tion. 

"  Tliej',  (the  prophets)  have  harmoniously  taught  us, 
that  God  made  all  things  out  of  nothing.  For  nothing 
is  coeval  with  God.  But  he,  being  his  own  place,  and 
in  want  of  nothing,  and  existing  before  the  worlds,  was 
desirous  to  make  man,  by  whom  he  might  be  known. 
For  him  he  prepared  the  world.  Now  he  who  is  creat- 
ed is  exposed  to  want ;  but  he,  who  is  uncreated,  needs 
nothing.  God,  then,  having  his  Logos  immanent  in  his 
own  bowels,  begat  him  with  his  own  wisdom,  emitting 
him  {(^epcv^auero^)  before  all  things.  This  Logos  he  had 
as  an  assistant  in  the  work  of  creation,  and  by  him  he 
made  all  things,  (S:c." 

"And  his  Logos,  who  was  always  with  him."* 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  doctrine  of  Justin  brought 
forward  in  a  form  sufficiently  repulsive.  Theophilus  is  not 
content,  like  his  predecessors,  to  represent  the  Logos  as 
the  immanent  reason  or  understanding  of  the  Deity  ;  hut 
he  says,  in  somewhat  offensive  terms,  that  he  was  evd'ia- 
Oeiov  ev  roig  Ldioig  onkaryyoig ;    and  that  at  his  birth,  he 

f/wi'  ovv  0  Otoq  xov  tavTOv  loyov  evdcux^exov  av  rocg  idtoig 

anXav/yvoig,  eyevpy^ouv  avxov  (.ura  rijg  iavxov  aoqjiag  eleQevlufievog 
TiQo  Ttoi^  oAcoi/.      7bvT0v  Tov  ).oyov,    y,.  T.  A. 


Aai  0  loyog  6  ayiog  uvtov  6  aiec  gviittccqojv  avio).     Ad  Au- 
tolycum,  Lib.  II.  §  10.  p.  355.- 


Let.  IL]  opinions  of  the  early  fathers.  37 

was  e^f^ev^af-tevov  cast  forth  fiorn   his  place,  in  order  to 
assist  ill  creating  the  world. 

Even  Bishop  Bull's  courage  fails  him  here.  "  Fateor, 
jcp  Aoym  et  Filio  Dei  generationem  f^?/a/?,6Zrt?7i  a  Theophilo 
tribui,  quae  creationem  mundi  paullo  antecessit."  But 
what  kind  of  generation  ?  Certainly  not,  he  answers,  of 
a  person  who  did  not  actually  exist  before — but  it  was  a 
generation  non  veram  ac  propriam sed  fgiirate  ct  meta- 
phor icus  sic  dictam,     0pp.  p.  215. 

Is  then,  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God  a  proper 
one?  Has  it  any  concern  with  sex?  No,  the  Bishop 
would  say;  but  there  is  a  real  procession  or  emanation 
from  God  the  Father,  as  the  original  source  of  all  Being. 
But  this,  I  reply,  is  just  what  Theophilus  asserts.  The 
diiference,  however,  between  him  and  the  Bishop  is, 
that  Theophilus  asserts  the  generation  or  procession  of 
the  Son  to  have  been  merely  antemundane;  while  his 
commentator  asserts  that  it  was  from  eternity. 

That  he  declares  the  Logos  to  have  been  ahvays  with 
the  Father  is  plain ;  and  this  is  in  perfect  concord  with 
Justin,  Athenagoras,  and  Tatian.  It  is  indeed  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  his  assertion,  that  the  Logos  was 
evdcaij^eiov  €v  roig  onAay/i^otg  tov  narpog.  But  the  birth, 
the  generation,  the  existence  ad  extra,  or  the  hypostati- 
cal  existence  of  the  Aoyog,  most  undoubtedly  is  asserted 
to  be  only  antemundane. 

If,  however,  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  opinion  of 
Theophilus,  another  passage  will  serve  to  remove  it. 
"God,  the  Father  of  the  universe,"  says  he,  "  is  incom- 
prehensible, and  cannot  be  contained  in  any  place. — But 
his  Logos,  by  whom  he  made  all  things — assuming  the 
person  of  the  Father — came  into  paradise  in  his  per- 
son, and   conversed   with  Adam.     For   the  holy  Scrip- 


S8  OI'INIONS  OF  TUIL   EARLY    FATHERS.  [LeT.   II. 

tiire  teaches  us,  that  Adam  said  he  heard  a  voice. 
Now  what  else  is  a  voice,  but  the  Word  of  God,  who  is 
his  Son  ;  not  as  poets  and  mjthologers  speak  of  the 
sons  of  God,  born  from  carnal  intercourse;  but,  as  truth 
declares,  the  Logos  who  was  always  immanent  {evdiccOe- 
jov  laid  vp^  deposited)  in  the  heart  of  God.  Before  any 
thing  was  made,  he  had  him  for  a  counsellor,  who  was 
his  understanding  and  his  reason.  But  when  God  desir- 
ed to  make  what  he  had  purposed  to  make,  he  begat  this 
Logos  produced,  {nQocpo^ixov,  apparent,  prophoric),  the 
first  born  of  all  creation.  Not  that  the  Father  depriv- 
ed himself  of  reason  ;  but  having  begotten  the  Logos,  he 
converses  always  with  his  Logos,  (or  reason.)  This,  the 
holy  Scriptures  and  all  inspired  men  teach;  of  whom 
John  says,  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Lo- 
gos was  with  God  ;  shev»^ing  that,  at  first,  God  was  alone, 
and  his  Logos  in  him.  Afterwards  he  says.  And  the 
Logos  was  God.  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;  and 
without  him  was  nothing  made.  The  Logos,  therefore, 
being  God,  and  produced  from  God,  when  it  seemed  good  to 
the  Father  of  the  universe,  he  sends  him  to  any  particular 
place,  &c.* 

*   'O  ,<J6i'  060^  '/Ml  7iai},Q    TMV    oloiv  u^aoof^TO?  iGlC,    v.ai  tv  TOno) 

ovx  eu()i(jy.fTui (J  df  Xoyug  ccviov ava}.aii(javoiv  to  ixgoaoi- 

nov  zov  naTQOQ ixfxQtyav^TO  eig  top  IIuQudeinov 6g  iotl 

'AUL  viog  aviov,  ovv.  cog  oi  ■jioii]iat leyovGiv ctXlu  oj?  alt]- 

Oata  di,}]yeiTai  top  Xoyov,  top  opia  dianapiog  fpdiadizop  6p  accgSta 
"O^fov.  IJqo  yuQ  XL  yivtad^ai,  tqvtop  er/ov  GVfA^ovXov,  iavrov  vovv 
xat  qQ0P7]Gip  opra.  'Onoxe  di  t]d6h](Jfv  6  S^eog  noifjaai  oaa  (^ov- 
levaccio,  tovtov  top  koyop  {yivv7]0i  TiQoqoQi^ov,  TrgcoToroicov  naoTig 

y.TiGfcDg diixpiig  on  epTT^onoig  fiovog  6  deog,  aai  sv  av- 

T(o  6  Xoyog Oeog  oin>  mp  6  ).oyog,  aai  eyt  Otov  mcpvy.wg,  ottot  av 

§ovXeTu.i  6  7iuT)]o  Ttop  olojp,  K.  T.  A.     A(l.  Autoljcum,   Lib.  II.   §  22. 


Let.  11.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  39 

After  the  remarks  which  have  been  already  made, 
further  comment  on  this  passage  is  unnecessary.  The 
points  in  question — viz.  antemundane  and  voluntary  gener- 
ation, (not  that  which  is  eternal  and  necessary,)  are  too 
plain  not  to  be  perceived,  by  every  intelligent  reader. 


IREN^US. 

This  writer  was  probably  a  native  of  Asia  Minor; 
for  as  he  himself  informs  us  in  his  letter  to  Florinus,  he 
was  the  disciple  and  friend  of  Polycarp.  He  came  to 
Lyons,  in  France,  where  he  was  first  a  Presbyter  under 
Photinus  ;  whom  as  bishop,  he  succeeded,  about  A.  D. 
177.  His  work  against  the  Gnostics,  written  originally 
in  Greek,  has  come  down  to  us,  with  the  exception  of 
the  principal  part  of  tha  first  book,  in  a  literal  and  bar- 
barous Latin  translation. 

The  controversy  with  the  Gnostics,  in  which  this  fa- 
ther was  so  deeply  engaged,  naturally  led  him  to  reject 
with  warmth  the  emanation-philosophy,  which  is  the 
distinguishing  trait  of  this  sect. 

In  doing  this,  he  manifests  his  disapprobation  of  any 
attempt  to  explain  the  generation  of  the  Son,  by  such 
comparisons  as  were  common,  in  the  age  when  he  lived. 
"God,"  says  he,  "  being  all  mind  and  all  Logos,  what  he 
thinks  he  speaks,  and  what  he  speaks  he  thinks.  His 
thought  is  Logos  ;  and  his  Logos,  mind  ;  and  the  Father 
himself  is  the  Mind  which  comprises  all.  Whoever 
therefore  speaks  of  the  mind  of  God,  as  if  externally 
produced,  (prolationem  propriam  menti  donat)  makes 
him  composite  ;  as  if  God  were  one  thing,  and  his  essen- 
tial mind  another." 


40  OPINIONS   OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.   H 

Shortly  after,  speaking  of  the  production  (prolatio- 
nem)  of  the  Logos,  which  the  Gnostics  maintained,  he 
rephes,  "  But  the  prophet  says  concerning  him,  Who 
shall  declare  his  generation  ?  But  you,  divining  about 
his  birth  of  the  Father,  and  transferring  the  utterance 
of  words  by  the  human  tongue  to  the  Word  of  God,  are 
justly  detected  by  us,  as  not  understanding  either  human 
or  divine  thinofs/** 

In  like  manner  he  casts  away  the  favorite  compari- 
son, drawn  from  the  irradiation  of  light  from  the  Sun. 
'•  If,  says  he,  they  (the  Gnostics)  speak  of  an  emission 
[emanation]  of  God's  understanding,  they  separate  and 
divide  the  understanding  of  God.  Where  and  whence 
did  it  emanate?  Whatever  emanates  is  received  by 
something;  but  what  was  there  more  ancient  than  the 
mind  of  God,  by  which  it  could  be  received,  when  it 
was  sent  forth."  He  then  goes  on  to  state,  that  if  the 
emission  of  the  Logos  be  compared  to  the  irradiation  of 
light,  which  is  received  by  the  air  that  must  exist  an- 
tecedently to  the  irradiation  ;  then  the  emission  of  the 
Logos  would  render  necessary  a  subject  to  receive  it, 
which  is  more  ancient  than   itself.t 

More  fully  still,  does  this  father  express  his  aversion 
to  the  belief  of  any  emanation  from  God,  in  the  follow- 
ing passage.  "  Since  the  Supreme  God  is  all  mind,  and 
all  Logos,  as  we  have  before  said;  and  nothing  in  him 
is  more  ancient,  or  later,  or  anterior;  but  he  remains 
entirely  equal,  and  alike,  and  one  ;  no  emission  of  this 
nature  can  take  place."J 

In   chap.   23,  Lib.  II,  he    rejects    the  simile    of  one 

*  Irenaeus  in  Biblioth.  Patrum.  Tom.  II.  P.  li.  c.  48.  p.  210. 
t  Ibid.  p.  256.  Lib.  II.  c.  17.  t  Il'it^  c  18.  E.  F. 


OPIN'IOXS  OF  THE   LARLV  FATHERS.  41 

torch  kindling  another  without  any  diminution  of  its 
light,  which  was  so  often  apphed,  by  the  early  fathers, 
to  explain  the  generation  of  tlie  Son  of  God.  Other 
passages  of  a  similar  nature  might  be  produced  ;  but 
these  are  sufficient  to  developc  his  opinions  respecting 
these  points. 

After  such  declarations  against  the  speculating  phi- 
losophy of  the  age,  we  cannot  expect  to  find  this  father 
explicitly  avowing  any  theory  about  the  doctrine  of  the 
generation  of  the  Son.  I  have  searched  his  writings  in 
vain  to  find  a  direct  avowal.  There  is  no  doubt  of  his 
belief  in  the  proper  divinity  of  Christ.  He  calls  him 
"  truly  God  and  truly  man  ;"*  true  God;t  God,  and 
Lord,  and  eternal  King  :J  &;c.  Nor  is  there  any  doubt 
of  his  belief  in  the  eternity  of  the  Son,  considered  as  di- 
vine ;  for  he  speaks  of  the  Son  as  seinper  existens  apud 
Patrem  ;^  and  often  uses  expressions  respecting  him 
equivalent  to  this.  But  the  question  still  left  unexplain- 
ed is,  did  he  believe  in  an  eternal  Logos  evdiadeioQ^  or  in 
an  eternally  begotten,  prop/ionc  Logos  or  Son  .^^  The 
latter,  says  Bishop  Bull,  with  the  greatest  confidence. 
But  I  am  not  able  to  satisfy  myself  that  he  has  suffi- 
cient grounds  for  this  confidence.  Certainly  there  is 
nothing  in  the  declaration  that  the  Son  is  eternal,  which 
will  prove  this;  for  so  would  Justin,  and  Athenagoras, 
and  Tatian  have  spoken.  But  is  he  eternal  as  imma- 
nent or  prophoric  ;  as  the  reason  or  Logos  of  God  inter- 
nal, or  as  existing  in  a  separate  hypostasis?  While  the 
Bishop  would  assert  the  latter  with  confidence,  I  feel 
obliged  to  adopt  the  former  as  the  more  probable  opin- 
ion of  Irenaeus,  for  two  reasons. 

*  Ibid.  Lib.  IV.  c.  11.  D.  t  Ibid.  c.  22,  ad  finem. 

X  Ibid.  Lib.  HI.  c.  21.  F.  §  Ibid.  Lib.  HI.  c.  2Uv 

7 


42  Ol'INIONS   OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  IL 

1.  The  current  opinion  of  the  fathers  both  before 
and  after  Irenaeus,  was  in  unison  with  the  former.  Cae- 
teris  paribus,  the  probability  is,  that  Irenaeus  agreed 
with  the  general  body  of  the  Churches. 

2.  I  have  found  one  passage  in  this  writer,  which 
seems  to  me  to  recognize  the  common  opinion  of  the 
fathers,  about  the  Logos  immanent.  "  The  Word," 
says  he,  "glorified  his  Father,  dwelling  in  him  (manens  in 
eo  abiding  in  him,)  not  only  before  Adam,  but  before 
any  order  of  beings."*  » 

What  other  meaning  can  we  attach  to  manens  in  co, 
except  the  one  which  is  conveyed  by  evdiaOeiog  ev  avxq)^ 
And  though  this  is  an  expression  overlooked  by  Muen- 
scher,  and  even  by  Martini  ;  I  cannot  help  thinking  that 
it  developes,  in  an  indirect  way,  the  real  sentiments  of 
this  writer  under  examination. 

I  undertake  not  to  say,  that  no  other  expressions  of 
this  writer  can  be  found  which  may  seem  to  indicate  a 
ditlerent  opinion,  on  the  first  examination.  But  with 
the  fact  in  view,  that  the  phrase  Son  of  God  is  used  as 
a  proper  name,  and  commuted  by  Irenaeus  with  the 
term  Logos,  I  have  found  no  real  difficulty  in  the  belief 
that  the  views  of  this  Father  are  consistent  with  each 
other,  and   consistent  with  the   common  opinions   of  his 


CLEMENS  ALEXANDRINUS. 

flourished  at  Alexandria,  first  as  a  catechist,  and  then 
as  a  presbyter,  near  the  close  of  the  second  Century. 
(Fl.  A,  D.  192,  ob.  circa  220.)    His  works  still  extant  are 

*  Ibid.  Lib.  IV.  c.  28.  ad  init. 


Let.  II.]         OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  43 

his  Mdress  to  the  Heathen^  IJpoTpsjiJiTeog  Aoyog  ^  his  Peda- 
gogue ;  and  his  ^iQcofiaTa  or  JUiscellanics, 

Clemens  speaks  often  and  \eiy  copiously  of  the  Lo- 
gos ;  but  in  terms  so  loose  and  undefined,  that  hitherto 
all  attempts  to  make  a  representation  out  of  his  writ- 
ings, which  would  exhibit  him  as  consistent  in  respect  to 
his  views  of  the  person  of  Christ,  or  the  subject  of  the 
Logos,  have  failed  ;  at  least,  where  impartiality  has  been 
shewn  in  the  collection  of  testimonies  from  him.  Martini, 
in  his  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Logos  during  the  four 
first  Centuries,  does  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  repre- 
sentations of  Clemens  on  this  subject  are  irreconcileable. 
Of  the  same  opinion  is  Miinscher,  in  his  History  of  Chris- 
tian Doctrine  ;  and  Miinter  in  his  Manual  of  the  History 
of  ancient  Christian  Doctrine.  With  these  excellent 
patristical  critics  agrees  Roesler,  in  his  Bibliotheca  of 
the  Fathers;  a  writer  by  no  means  inferior  to  any,  who 
have  appeared  in  the  department  of  patristical  lore. 

A  brief  sketch  of  the  grounds,  on  which  such  an  opin- 
ion is  built,  may  be  found  in  the  following  passages. 

"  The  image  of  God  is  his  Logos  ;  and  the  divine  Lo- 
gos is  the  genuine  Son  of  understanding  {you)^  the  origin- 
al light  of  light.* 

Again;  "Plato  in  his  Phaedrus,  speaking  of  truth,  ex- 
plains it  as  an  idea.  An  idea  is  the  thought  [or  concep- 
tion] of  the  Divinity,  which  barbarians  call  the  Logos  of 

* f]  f^6v  yag  tov  Oeov  emoyv  6  loyog  avTOv^  acci  vcog  xov  vov 


yvtjacog  6  Oiog  loyog,  q)coTog  aQy^fjTvnov  fpcog.  Cohort,  ad  Graec. 
c.  10.  Sanct.  Patt.  Edit.  Oberthur,  Vol.  IV.  p.  157.  If  the  reading 
aQp]Tvnov  be  g-enuine,  the  meaning  of  Clemens  doubtless  is,  that  the 
Logos  is  the  source  of  light  to  man,  i.  e.  the  original  whence  their 
light  is  derived.  For  Clemens  immediately  adds,  "•  The  image  of  the 
Logos  is  man  ;  for  there  is  a  real  vovg  in  man,  who  was  formed  in 
the  image  of  God,  &c." 


44  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.    II, 

God.     [By  barbarians,  he  means  the  heathen  Greeks.] 
Tlie  Logos  coming  Jorth,  (npoeAd^cov)    became   the 
creator  of  the  world.     Afterwards,  when  the  Logos  be- 
came flesh  he  begat  himself."* 

"There  is  one  unbegotten  Being,  the  Almighty  God. 
And  there  is  one  begotten  before  all  things,  by  whom  all 
things  were  made.  For  Peter  truly  says,t  there  is  one 
God,  ivho  created  the  beginning  (^a^yj^v)  of  all  thmcrs  ^  by 
which  [^ocpyr^y'\  he  means  the  first  begotten  Son^  and  he  acra- 
rately  understood  the  meaning  of  £V  apyj^  enonjoe  6  6eog 
tov  ovgavov  vat  u^v  yqv.  This  is  he,  who  is  called  W  is" 
dom  by  the  prophets,  the  teacher  of  all  creatures,  the 
counsellor  of  God,  who  from  ancient  time,  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  at  divers  times  and  in  various 
ways,  instructed  and  perfected  [mcn.]J 

In  another  place,  he  calls  the  Logos,  the  first  created 
wisdom.     Strom.  Lib.  V. 

It  is  on  account  of  these  and  such  like  passages  in 
Clemens,  that  Martini,  Miinscher,  and  Miinter  all  unite 
in  declaring  their  entire  conviction,  that  Clemens  har- 
monized with  .Justin  and  other  early  fathers  in  the  be- 
lief, that  the  Logos  existed  in  God,  as  his  reason  or  un- 
derstanding from  eternity,  and  that  his  generation  was 
only  antemundane.  And  yet,  they  all  admit,  that  there 
are  other  passages,  which  seem  to  be  at  variance,  (they 
hesitate  not  to  say  that  they  are  at  variance)  with  the 
opinion  just  advanced.  Among  such  have  been  reckon- 
ed the  following. 

* nQoiX{>(i}v  da  6  loyog,  dtjf-iiovQy tag  atrtog.  ineira  y.ai  iavTOv 

yfvv(x,  oral/  o  koyog  aag'^  (yevezo,  n.  z.  A.    Strom  V.  c.  2. 

t  The  quotation  by  Clemens  is  from  the  KriQvyfia  of  Peter,  an 
apocryphal  book,  which  Clemens  quotes  as  genuine. 

+  Ibid.  Strom.  Lib.  VI.  c.  7.  p.  242. 


Let.  11.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  45 

"The  Logos  of  the  Father  Is  not  npocpopi^ogy^  Whe- 
ther he  means  to  contradict  the  representation  of  Theo- 
philus,  who  distinguished  the  Logos  into  n^ocpopiHog  and 
evdcaO^fioQ^  may  perhaps  be  a  question;  but  he  aj)pcars 
to  me  to  assert  only  that  the  simile  drawn  from  a  word, 
uttered  by  the  human  voice,  is  inadequate  to  describe 
the  Logos  ;  for  as  he  proceeds  to  say,  '^  He  [the  Logos]  is 
the  manifest  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  his  omnipo- 
tent power,  and  truly  divine  ;"  i.  e.  he  is  not  like  an  emp- 
ty prophoric  sound. 

Again  ;  he  describes  the  Logos  as  omniscient  and  omni- 
present; and  as  the  most  perfect,  holy,  and  exalted  na- 
ture, and  who  approximates  the  nearest  to  the  only  Al- 
mighty. Ibid.  Vol.  VI.  p.  385. 

In  another  passage,  he  calls  the  Son  "the  older  by  birth 
among  mtelligible  thmgs;  the  timeless  beginning  and 
firstling  of  beings,  by  whom  we  must  learn  the  original 
cause ;  the  father  of  all,  the  most  ancient  and  most  bene- 
ficent of  all,  &:c."t 

Both  opinions  ascribed  to  Clemens,  seemed  to  be  com- 
prized in  this  passage.  In  one  moment,  the  Son  is 
7ip6GiSvTepov  ev  Toig  vor^ioig ^  in  the  next  he  is  np'  cc'/Qo- 
vov  Tcac  avagyov  a^yrjv  tlov  ovtcov.  The  solution  of  this 
apparent  inconsistency  lies,  probably,  within  our  reach. 
In  respect  to  the  generation  of  the  Logos,  he  w  as  Trgeo' 
fiuTC^ov  {y  yEViG€Ly  while  in  regard  to  his  preceding  ex- 
istence, as  the  reason  or  understanding  of  God,  he  was 
the  timeless  and  beginningkss  (pardon  the  word)  begin- 
nings and  original  of  existences. 

*  Ibid  Strom.  V.  c.  1.  Vol.  IV.  p.  12. 

t ^v  TOig  vor,TOig  TTQiO^vifQov  ev  yu'eofi,   ti]v  aygovov  v.uu 

(xvuQ'/ov  a(j'/})vza  -/.ul  U7iu(j)[t]v  to)p  outmv,  tov  viov,  nuQ    ou  f'Xfuav- 

d^UViLV  TO  67ie'A6ll'U    UlTVOV,  TOV    TCaiiQa  TOJV   6lo)V,  TO  TlQeCi^lGTOV  Y.ai> 

ncKi'TMv  evegyiTr/.ojTUTOv,  x.  r.  A.    Ibid.  Strom.  VII.  c.  1.  p.  380. 


46  OPINIONS   OF   THE   EARLY   FATHERS.  [LeT.    II. 

In  hisCohortatloaclGraecos,  he  calls  the  Logos  aidws  ; 
and  again  he  speaks  of  the  ai'^iog  viog.  But  whether  he 
used  these  words,  with  the  intention  only  to  convey  the 
idea  just  expressed  above,  or  whether  he  meant  more 
bj  them,  some  may,  no  doubt,  regard  as  uncertain. 

For  my  own  part,  I  feel  that  it  would  be  a  very  diffi- 
cult thing  to  make  out  and  establish  a  definite  statement 
of  Clemens'  opinion,  on  the  point  in  question.  He  is  so 
loose  and  declamatory  a  writer,  that  he  seems  to  elude 
all  effort  to  find  any  thing  systematic  and  well  defined, 
on  points  that  are  more  nice  and  difficult.  As  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  the  praise  oi  consistency  can  hardly  be  giv- 
en him,  by  a  sober  and  impartial  inquirer.  And  though 
the  'predominant  evidence  respecting  his  opinion  appears 
to  be  in  favour  of  the  supposition  that  he  believed  in  the 
simple  antemundane  generation  of  the  Logos  ;  yet  the  ap- 
peal cannot  be  made  to  him  as  a  clear  example  of  this 
view  of  the  subject,  with  the  same  confidence  that  it 
may  be  made  to  some  of  the  preceding  Fathers,  who 
have  been  quoted  ;  or  io  some  whose  testimonies  still 
remain  to  be  recited. 

TERTULLIArv. 

This  father  was  born  at  Carthage,  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  Century  ;  educated  as  a  heathen  ;  and 
converted  to  Christianity,  one  knows  not  with  certainty 
in  what  year.  His  writings  were  composed  about  the 
end  of  th(3  second  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  third. 

TertuUian  has  left  us  no  reason  to  doubt  what  his 
opinions  were,  in  respect  to  the  point  in  question.  "God," 
says  he,  "  before  the  creation,  was  alone,  his  own  world 
and  place;  alone,  because  there  was  nothing  extrinsic  to 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  47 

him.  Yet  not  alone,  for  he  had  with  him  what  he 
had  in  him,  viz,  his  own  reason.  For  God  is  a  rational 
being,  and  his  reason  was  in  him  first,  and  so  all  things 
were  derived  from  him  ;  which  reason  is  his  under- 
standing. The  Greeks  call  this  Logos,  and  we,  Sermo. 
On  this  account,  we  are  accustomed,  by  merely  inter- 
preting the  word  [Logos,]  to  say,  that  the  Word  was  in 
the  beginning  icith  God :  when  we  should  say,  to  speak 
correctly,  Reason  was  first ;  for  God  from  the  beginning 
was  not  sermonalis  but  rationalist* 

Here  is  the  existence  of  the  Logos  in  his  first  state 
in  God,  as  his  reason  or  understanding.  Next  as  to  his 
generation. 

"  As  soon  as  God  had  determined  to  bring  into  sub- 
stance and  form  those  things,  which  he  had  arranged 
within  himself  by  his  reason  and  his  Logos  (Sermone,) 
he  first  produced  the  Word  himself,  having  in  him  his 
own  reason  and  wisdom,  that  the  universe  might  be 
made  by  him,  &c."t 

Again ;  "  Then  the  Word  himself  assumed  his 
form  and  beauty,  sound  and  voice,  when  God  said,   Let 

* Caeterum   ne   tunc  quidem   solus;    habebat  enim    secum, 

quam  habebat  in  semetipso,  rationem  suam  scilicil.  Rationalis 
enim  Deus,  et  ratio  in  ipso  prius,  et  ita  ab  ipso  omnia;  quae  ratio 
sensus  ipsius  est.  Hunc  Graeci  ^oyov  dicunt,  quo  vocabulo  etiam 
sermonem  appellamus.  Ideoque  in  usu  est  jam  nostrorum,  per 
simplicitatem  interpretationis,  Sermonem  dicere  in  primodio  apud 
Deiim  fidsae  ;  cum  majus  rationem  competat,  antiquiorem  haberi;  quia 
non  sermonalis  a  principio,  sed  rationalis  Deus,  &c.  Advers.  Praxe- 
am.  c.  5. 

t  Ut  primum  Deus  voluit  ea,  quae  cum  sophiae  ratione  et  sermone 
disposuerat  intra  se,  in  substantias  et  species  suas  edere,r/)5wmpnmK/AJ 
protulit  Sermonem^  habentem  in  se  individuas  suas  rationem  et  sophi- 
am,  ut  per  ipsum  fiercnt  universa,  &c.     Advers.  Prax.  c.  6. 


on!nOT$  OF  THS  KAKLT  PATHKftS.  FLtt.    II 


there  be  light  Tbk  is  the  perfect  natiritv  of  the  Word, 
when  he  proceeds  irom  God.  formed  by  him  hrsi  mental- 

]T(ad  cogitatum.)  br  the  oame  o\  wisdom thengenerot- 

€d  im  fad  (ad  edectum.)  k.c"  Bv  this  procession  became 
he  the  nrst  bom  Son,  before  anj  thiiig  else  was  bom; 
and  the  only  beffotteD."* 

To  aiKirer  the  objeciiODs,  which  might  be  made 
a«aiiKt  the  e^Deraiion  cf  the  Word  when  G<xl  s?-id 
LdEi  thtrt  be  lighL  he  =©od  after  ssts  :  -  But  I  repij,  that 
Dothii^  can  proceed  from  God  which  is  inane  and  void  ; 
so  that  what  proceeded  from  him  does  not  relate  to  ai.j 
thing  ioaoe  and  roid :  nor  could  that  tctuU  suhstaucu  urkich 
proccedfdjrom  htm.  who  made  so  manr  sobstacces,  and  is 
himself  so  ^rf  i:  i  snbstance-"^ 

I  -.-.z  igainst  Hermogenes,  who  maintained  the 

*  '  '  =  cause,  as  he  asserted-  God  had  ai- 
:     —  -    ^  of  course  there  must  have  altca^ 

been  somethii]^  oyer  which  he  exercised  dominion.) 
Tertullian,  after  denying  this,  goes  on  to  explain  in  the 
following  words.  *■  He  (God)  is  not  Father — always,  be- 
cause he  is  always  God.  For  he  could  not  be  a  Father 
before  he  had  a  Son :  as  there  cannot  be  a  judge,  before 
there  b  a  crime.  There  si^  -  :^.  when  the  Son  was 
ne:  '   -  ^       ' —  ::,:  .'.  cjike  th*^  L;  vr."! 


?Tinm  somit. 

-itas  per- 

T.noi   ad 

4^ 


prodire  j 
re  sdntantia. 
-  fe€iL     Adw^ 
r*£TS  semper. 


Let.  II.]  opiitioss  of  the  easlt  fathkbs*  4S 

A^^in  :  "  Let  Hermogenes  ackDowledee,  that  the 
Wisdom  of  God  is  spoken  of  as  bom  and  formed  ;  lest  we 
should  believe  that  aoj  ihin^  besides  God  onlj  was  ud- 
bom  and  unformed-  For  if  within  God,  what  was  from 
bim  and  in  him.  vas  not  idthout  a  hegimmimg.  name  I  v  bb 
Wisdom,  born  and  formtd  from  tht  time  ichen  th^  mind  of 
God  began  to  bi  agitated  about  theformatiom  ^thi,  yyorid  : 
much  more  must  we  deny  that  what  was  without  God 
is  eternal."* 

Other  passages  might  be  adduced  ;  bat  it  would  be  su- 
perduous.  It  is  impossible  that  Tertullian  should  be 
misunderstood,  in  regard  to  the  point  in  question,  how- 
ever obscure  some  parts  of  his  phraseology  may  be. 

Compare  now  this  father  with  the  Greek  writers, 
who  have  been  quoted  in  the  preceding  pages,  and  he 
will  be  found  to  exceed  them,  in  the  repulsive  style  of 
his  laoofuasB,  and  (mav  I  not  add  ?)  gross  materialism  of 
his  speculations.  He  even  lixes  upon  the  very  moment 
when  the  Logos  was  s^enerated.  The  voice  of  God, 
when  he  said  L/tt  there  be  light,  was  not  a  vacant  empty 
sound,  but  became  a  hypostatical  substantial  bemg.  the 
Son  of  God.  and  Creator  of  the  world.  No  wonder 
Bishop  Bull  is  greatly  troubled  to  manage  this  Father; 
as  any  one  may  see.  who  will  read  Bullii  Opp.  pp.  235 — 
246.  If  he  read  with  an  impartial  eye,  he  will  be  sat- 
isfied, I  think,  that  Martini  is  guilty  of  no  slander,  wheo 

potoit  e^e  ante  6Unm :  nee  JTidei  ante  delictum. f  »«  mmiem  wem- 

pm*  cmm  ef  Jtika  mo%  fmi qci  patrem  Dowmm  (dL  Deaa)  &• 

ceret.  Cootra  Hemiogeoeai,  c  o. 

*  Si  eDim  intra  DoaMBvoa,  qpod  ex  ipso  et  m  ipso  §mX  mmt  imkit 
nonfns.  sophia  scilicet  ejis  exinde  nata  et  con&ta,  ex  ^oo  in  seasa 
Pel  ad  opera  mmdi  di^MMienda  coepit  i^nari ;  Mvlto  ■Mgis  mm  ca- 
pii,  sine  intio  qnkqiiaiii  fbisse,  quod  extra  DoMhma  liient  dmin 
Hermo*.  c.  IS. 

8 


50  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  iI» 

he  says,  "  If  any  one  is  desirous  to  see  how  the  most  ex- 
plicit assertions  of  a  writer  can  be  perverted  by  an  er- 
roneous explanation  of  particular  words,  by  arbitrary 
interpolations,  &;c,  let  him  read  Bull ;"  [viz,  on  the  two 
passages  last  quoted.] 

ORIGEN-. 

This  father,  who  has  so  often  been  the  subject  of 
severe  remark,  by  modern  critics  and  divines,  for  his 
mystical  exegesis  and  the  extravagance  of  his  theological 
opinions,  was  born  at  Alexandria,  about  A.  D.  185.  He 
yields  to  none  of  the  fathers,  except  Jerome,  in  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  he  has  left  very  numerous 
writings  behind  him,  most  of  which  are  in  our  hands. 

No  doubt  can  fairly  be  entertained,  that  Origen  be- 
lieved in  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son.  For  the 
hypostatic  existence  of  the  Logos,  he  strongly  contends  ; 
and  as  clearly  declares,  that  he  was  Son  from  eternity.* 
He  unequivocally  rejects  all  similies,  drawn  from  human 
generation  or  production  ;t  and  takes  a  decided  stand 
against  any  application  of  the  emanation-philosophy  or 
the  doctrine  of  emanation,  prolation,  or  emission  from 
God,  to  the  explanation  of  this  subject.J     The  immuta- 

*  Vide  apufl  Athanas.  decret.  Synod.  Nicaen.  §  27.  Tom.  I.  p. 
233j,  edit  Montfaucon.  Also  a  quotation  from  Origen  by  Marcellus, 
(in  Eusebius  contra  Marcell.  1.  c.  4.  p.  22.  edit.  Paris.  1628,)  in 
which  passage  he  thus  argues.  "  If  God  was  always  perfect,  and 
had  power  to  be  a  father,  and  it  was  good  that  he  should  be  the 
father  of  such  a  Son  ;  why  did  he  put  off  and  deprive  himself  of  this 
good,  and,  as  one  may  say,  after  that  he  could  be  the  father  of  a 
Son,  did  not  become  so?"  See  also  Comm.  in  Johann.  pp.  49  and 
50,  also  33 ;  and  TleQi  CLQXoiv  Lib.  I.  c.  2.  3.  IV.  28. 

t  TJeQi  uQXMv,  Lib.  IV.  28,  and  L  c.  2.  4.  plhld.  I  c.  2.  6. 


Let.  II. ]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  51 

h'lVity  of  the  divine  nature  was  a  truth  which  he  regard- 
ed with  strong  approbation ;  and  every  thing  which 
seemed  to  interfere  with  it,  he  rejected.  So  great  a 
change  as  the  Deity  must  suffer,  by  the  generation  of  a 
Son  in  time,  appeared  therefore  irreconcilable  with  his 
views  of  the  divine  nature.  And  on  the  same  general 
ground  of  reasoning,  he  maintained  the  eternity  of  the 
world.  "As  there  cannot  be,"  says  he,  "  a  Creator  with- 
out a  creation those  thing's  made  by  God  must  ne- 
cessarily have  existed  always,  and  there  was  no  time 
when  these  things  were  not;  for  if  there  ever  was  a 
time  when  these  things  were  not,  then  there  was  a  time 
when  there  was  no  Maker,  &c."* 

The  gross  material  ideas  conveyed  by  some  words, 
which  were  used  respecting  the  generation  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  were  common  in  the  time  of  Origen,  were 
very  offensive  to  his  ear.  "  Begotten  of  the  being  ot 
the  Father,"  was  a  phrase,  which  he  could  not  tolerate 
at  all.  "  Some,"  says  he,  understand  the  phrase,  (John 
8:  42,)  E^i]Wov  ano  tov  Geov,  of  the  generation  of  the 
Son ;    from  which,  they  say,  it  follows  that  the  Son  was 

begotten  from  the  being  of  the  Father, It  follows,  that 

they  must  describe  the  Father  and  Son  as  corporeal, 
and  that  the  Father  is  divided.  These  are  the  dog- 
mas of  men,  who  never  even  dreamed  of  an  invisible  and 
incorporeal  nature."! 

Origen  himself,  however,  adopted  a  tenuious  specula- 
tion, on  the  subject  of  the  generation  of  the  Son.  He 
borrowed  an  intellectual  or  metaphysical  similitude,  to 
designate  his  view  of  it,      "  Sicut  voluntas   procedit  e 

*  Apud  Methodium,  in  Photii  Biblioth.  cod.  CCXXXV.  p.  93S.  ed. 
-Schott. 

t  Comm.  in  Johann.  p.  306. 


52  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  TATHERS.  [LeT.  II. 

mente,  (sajs  he,) so  is  the  Son  begotten  of  the  Fa- 
ther."* So  he  compares  the  generation  or  rather  the 
eternity  of  the  generation  of  the  Son,  with  the  splen- 
dour that  is  coetaneous  with  hght.  t 

In  another  place,  he  guards  against  any  interference 
with  the  immutability  of  the  Father,  by  representing 
the  generation  of  the  Son  as  always  continuing,  "  The 
Father,"  says  he,  "  did  not  beget  the  Son,  and  dismiss 
{aneXvoev)  him  after  his  birth;  but  he  always  is  beget- 
ting him."J 

It  was  Origen's  philosophy,  therefore,  which  led  him 
to  embrace  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  ;  the  same 
philosophy  which  led  him  to  maintain  the  eternity  of 
the  world,  or  of  the  creation. 

To  defend  the  immutability  of  God  he  took  the 
strange  position,  that  a  change  in  his  relation  in  respect 
to  dependent  beings,  necessarily  implied  a  change  in  the 
creator  and  governor  of  them  ;  or  that  all  the  relations 
implied  by  the  names  of  God,  which  are  found  in  the 
Bible,  must  have  been  eternal.  That  he  embraced  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  in  consequence  of  being 
guided  by  such  philosophy,  will  not  serve  much  to  recom- 
mend this  doctrine  to  considerate  inquirers  of  the  pre- 
sent day. 

DIONYSIUS, 

Bishop  of  Alexandria  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the 
2nd  Century,  from  his  learning  and  fame  was  surnamed 
the  Great.     He  has  been  claimed  by  both   parties,  the 

*  UeQL  aQ%Mv,  Lib.  I.  c.  2.  6. 

t  Ibid.  lib.  IV.  28.     Lib.  \.  c.  2.  4. 

X  Comm.  in  Jerem.  Homil.  IX.  Oberthiir.  0pp.  Pat.  T.  XV.  p.  478. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  53 

orthodox,  and  the  heterodox.  Two  quotations  from  him, 
as  his  sentiments  are  recorded  by  Athanasius,  will  suffice 
to  exhibit  his  views. 

"  The  Son  of  God  is  created  and  made and  as  he 

is  a  created  being,  he  existed  not  before  he  was  made."* 

Again:  "God  was  not  always  Fatlier ;  the  Son  was 
not  always  :  but  the  supreme  God  was  once  without  the 
Logos,  and  the  Son  Avas  not,  before  he  was  begotten; 
for  he  is  not  eternal,  but  came  into  being  afterwards."t 

I  pass  by  this  Father,  without  further  remark;  as  hi^ 
authority  will  not  probably  have  much  weight  with 
sober  inquirers  ;  because  his  opinions  are  not  very  per- 
fectly developed,  nor  his  real  character  well  ascertained. 

Of  Theognostus,  a  man  of  distinguished  character  at 
Alexandria,  whom  Athanasius  calls  avr^Q  Aoyiog — 6  Oav- 
(.laotog  Tcai  anovdacog ;  of  Pierius,  a  presbyter  at  Alexan* 
dria;  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  bishop  of  New  Cassa- 
rea  in  Pontus;  all  disciples  of  Origen,  and  all  living  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  third  century  ;  I  have  been  unable 
to  trace  any  certain  information,  which  would  show  what 
they  held  relative  to  the  point  under  examination.  In 
regard  to  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  however,  it  should  be 
mentioned,  that  if  the  Creed  attributed  to  him  by  Gre- 
gory of  Nyssa  be  genuine,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but 
that  his  belief  comported  altogether  with  the  Athana- 
sian  Symbol.  But  there  are  strong  reasons  for  believing 
that  this  creed  is  not  the  work  of  the   bishop  of  Nova- 

*  Apud  Athanas.  Expos.  Fidei.  p.  2 4G. 

t  Apud  Athanas.  Expos.  Fid.  §  14,  p.  253.  Athanasius  says  that 
the  Arians  asserted  these  were  the  sentiments  of  Dionysius ;  but  as 
he  does  not  deny  the  truth  of  their  allegation,  it  may  be  presumed 
to  be  correct. 


54  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  II. 

Caesarea  ;  although  Bishop  Bull  has,  without  any  hesita- 
tion, received  it  as  genuine.  I  cannot  stop  here  to  re- 
peat the  reasons  for  mj  opinion  on  this  point  ;  they  may 
be  found  at  large,  in  Martini's  Geschichte  der  Gotheit 
Christi,  pp.  232,  233. 

LUCIAN, 

A  presbyter  of  Antioch,  flourished  at  the  close  of  the 
third  Century.  A  creed  is  still  extant,  ascribed  to  him 
by  a  council  assembled  at  Antioch  in  A.  D.  341,  in  which 
he  very  fully  ascribes  divine  attributes  to  Christ ;  but  in 
respect  to  the  generation  of  the  Son,  he  only  asserts  that 
he  was  yavm^ihevia  npo  naviojv  rcov  atcovcov  begotten  before 
all  ages^  [or  worlds,]  and  that  he  was  uqotojoxov  naar/s 
xitaecog,  the  first  born  of  every  creature,  [or  of  all  crea- 
tion.]* 

After  this  follows  a  formula  of  baptism  ;  and  the 
whole  closes  with  an  anathema  against  those  who  main- 
tain, that  "  there  was  a  time,  when  the  Son  was  not  be- 
gotten ;  or  that  the  Son  was  a  created  being,  like  other 
created  belnofs." 

Both  Ariaris  and  Athanasians  have  claimed  the 
creed  of  Lucian,  as  favouring  their  sentiments.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  expression  begotten  before  the  ages, 
or  the  first  born  ofi every  creature,  which  Justin  or  Tatian, 
or  Tertullian  would  have  rejected  ;  and  if  the  anathe- 
ma be  the  work  of  Lucian,  (more  probably  it  belongs  to 
the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  341)  still  it  may  mean  noth- 
ing more,  than  that  the  Son  could  not  have  been  begotten 

*  Soc.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  U.  c.  10.  In  Sozomen  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  IIL 
c.  V,  it  is  s?iid  that  the  Council  of  Antioch  ascribed  this  creeu  to  Lu- 
cian, and  declared  that  they  found  it  in  his  hand-writing. 


Let.  II.]  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers,  55 

since  time  began.  Bishop  Bull  himself  has  omitted  Lu- 
cian,  in  his  list  of  writers  who  testify  in  favour  of  eter- 
nal generation.     0pp.  pp.  200 — 203. 

METHODIUS 

was  bishop  of  Tyre  about  the  end  of  the  third  Century. 
Only  fragments  of  his  works  are  preserved ;  and  these 
principally  by  Photius,  in  his  Bibliotheca.  (Cod.  234 — 
237.) 

In  his  Treatise  Ilegi  jcov  yevvr^jcov^  he  says,  "The  be- 
ginning we  must  say,  is  the  Father  and  Maker  of  all ; 
^rom  which  sprung  the  most  just  Logos."* 

In  his  Symposium,  he  call  the  Logos  "  the  first  begot- 
ten of  God who  was  before  the  ages,"  [or  ivorlds,  or 

perhaps  Eons.l^t 

In  another  passage,  he  speaks  of  him,  as  "  the  most 
exalted  and  ancient  of  the  Eons,  and  the  first  [or  head] 
of  archangels."J 

Yet  this  same  Methodius,  who  speaks  so  exactly  in 
the  dialect  of  Justin,  Athenagoras,  and  others  of  like 
sentiments,  is  cited  by  Bishop  Bull,  as   clearly  teaching 

the   doctrine    of  eternal   generation.     "  Methodius 

aeternam  Filii  ex  Patre  generationem,  verbis  veluti  So- 
lis  radio  descriptis,  praedicat."     0pp.  p.  200.  §  7. 

What  is  the  evidence  ?    After  quoting  the  passage 

*  T7]v  fisv  ocQiYiv,  aqj*  7]g  ava(3XaGTrjG6v  o  ood^orccrog  loyoQ,  tov 
naT7]Qu  aat  noirjrr^v  xmv  oKmv  qaxiov.  Photii  Bibloth.  ed.  JSchott. 
p.  939. 

t  HQMToyovog  tov  Beov 6  ttqo  tojv  aiojvcov.  Sympos.  p.  79.  edit. 

Combetisii. 

+ }]v  yao  ngciKtideaiazov  tov  uqig^vtoltov  xiiiv  (xtoiVMV,  ytuL 

TiQODTOv  tojv  0LQiayyiX(}iV.     Ibid.  Sympos.  p.  79. 


56  OPINIONS  or  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  If. 

from  the  second  Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  &:c,  Methodius 
adds  ;  "  We  may  observe,  that  the  Son  is  here  spoken  of 
indefinitely  and  without  limitation  as  to  time  ;  For  thou 
art  my  Son,  said  the  Father  to  him,  not  Thou  hast  be- 
come so -y  thus  shewing  that  his  filiation  was  not  newly 
acquired^  and  also  that  he  who  before  existed  would  not 
come  to  an  end,  but  that  he  always  is  existent.* 

But  how  he  found  here  the  verba  veluti  Solis  radio  de- 
scripta,  I  am  unable  to  say.  I  find  no  more  than  what 
Justin  or  Tertullian  asserts;  viz,  that  his  filiation  was 
very  ancient,  i.  e.  antemundane ;  and  that  he  always  ex- 
isted, i.  e.  as  Logos  evdicx&^Tog.  The  passage  first  cited 
shows,  with  much  probability,  that  Methodius  embraced 
the  scheme  of  the  innate  Logos,  and  of  his  antemundane 
birth ;  and  if  so,  what  he  has  said,  in  the  passage  cited 
by  Dr.  Bull,  is  easily  explained,  without  any  recurrence 
to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  ;  while  on  the  other 
hand,  all  the  quotations  from  him  compared  together, 
render  it  quite  improbable  that  he  embraced  the  opin- 
ion, which  the  Bishop  ascribes  to  him. 

Turning  now  to  the  Latin  Church  again,  we  light  first 
upon 

CYPRIAN, 

A  distinguished  orator  and  bishop  at  Carthage,  about  the 
middle  of  the  third  Century.  This  father  was  much 
more  engaged  about  practical  piety  than  doctrinal  know- 
ledge ;  and  his  works  seldom  present  us  with  any  close 
investigation.  He  calls  the  Word  and  Son  of  God,  "  his 
power,  his  understanding,  his  wisdom,  and  his  glory.''t 

*  Photii  Biblioth.  Cod.  237. 

t  De  Idolorum  vanitate,  p.  228.  edit.  Baluz. 


[ 


Let.  IL]         opinions  op  the  earlV  fathers.  67 

The  only  passage,  that  I  have  been  able  to  find,  where 
is  any  direct  intimation  of  Cyprian's  opinion  in  respect  to 
the  generation  of  the  Logos,  is  the  application  to  him  of 
a  quotation  out  of  Sirach  24  :  3 ;  (which  book  he  regard- 
ed as  canonical.)  He  quotes  it  thus  :  "  I  came  forth  from 
the  mouth  of  the  most  High,  the  first  born  before  every 


creature."* 


The  manner  in  which  he  has  turned  this  passage,  and 
the  fact  that  he  cherished  a  high  respect  for  Tertullian, 
and  a  warm  attachment  to  him,  renders  it  not  improba- 
ble, as  Martini  supposes,  that  he  entertained  sentiments 
similar  with  his. 

ARNOBIUS, 

Who  wrote  a  little  after  the  close  of  the  third  century, 
testifies  abundantly  to  his  belief  that  Christ  is  truly  God  ; 
but  has  no  passage  that  I  am  able  to  find,  where  his 
opinion  respecting  the  point  in  question  is  stated. 

Passing  now  from  the  African  Churches  to  the  Ital- 
ian, we  find 

NOVATIAN, 

Who  composed  a  treatise,  about  A.  D.  256,  against  Sa- 
bellianism.  Cyprian,  who  was  very  strongly  opposed 
to  him,  in  so  far  as  he  embraced  the  opinion  that  lapsed 
Christians  were  not  to  be  readmitted  to  Christian  com- 
munion, concedes,  at  least  tacitly,  that  he  was  not  hete- 
rodox, in  his  view,  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity.  (Epist, 

*  E^-o  ex  ore  Altissimi  prodii,  primogenita  ante  oranem  creaturam. 
Testim.  adv.  Jud.  Lib.  II.  c.  1 .  In  the  Greek,  the  passage  runs  thu«  ; 
Eyoi  UTLO  OTOfiUTog  vipiGTOV  ilriXOovn 

9 


58  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  !!• 

76.)  Sozomen  testifies  directly,  that  he  was  heretical  on- 
ly on  the  point  already  mentioned.* 

We  may  well  suppose,  then,  that  he  has  represented, 
in  the  Treatise  just  mentioned,  the  usual  opinions  of  his 
time,  among  the  Latin  Churches.     Let  us  hear  him. 

"God  the   Father — creator — unoriginated,    invisible, 

immense,    immortal,    eternal,    the    only    God from 

whom,  when  he  pledsed,  the  Word  his  Son  was  born; 
which  one  must  not  understand  of  a  sound  from  the  per- 
cussion of  the  air,  nor  of  a  voice  forced  from  the  lungs, 
but  of  a  power  (virtutis)  substantially  produced  from 
God Therefore,  when  the  Father  ivilled  it,  he  pro- 
ceded  from  the  Father who   was  in  the    Father, 

&c."t 

This  is  in  entire  accordance  with  Tertulllan,  and  the 
earlier  Greek  Fathers  already  quoted. 

Among  the  writers  of  the  Italian  Church, 

LACTANTIUS 

Is  probably  to  be  reckoned.  It  is  a  common  opinion 
that  he  originated  from  Numldia  ;  principally  because 
Jerome  aserts,  that  Arnoblus  was  his  teacher.  But  his 
Latin  style  seems  strongly  to  vouch  for  It,  that  he  was 
a  native  of  Italy  ;  for  It  Is  very  refined,  compared  with 
that  of  the  African  writers.  He  was  a  teacher  of  rheto- 
ric In.NIcomedia,  for  a  considerable  part  of  his  life  ;  and 
in  A.  D.  314  or  315,  was  called  by  the  emperor  Con- 
stantlne  the  Great,  to  be  the  tutor  of  his  son  Crispus. 
Let  us  hear  him,  respecting  the  point   in   question. 

♦Sozomen,   Lib.  VI.   c.  24.     NovaTog rovg  fifTaf^ielofievovg 

em  TOig  a,«apT>;juc<fft  ecg  noivcoviuv  ov  ttqoguto.  Aac  tovto  /.lovov 

eUCClVOTOfAfL. 

t  0pp.  edit.  Rigalt.     Cap.  31.  p.  740. 


Let.  II.]         OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  59 

-"  In  what  manner  did   God  procreate  [the  Son  ?] 


The  divine  work  cannot  be  understood  and  fully  ex- 
plained by  any  one  ;  but  still,  the  holy  Scriptures  teach 
us,  by  admonishing  us,  that  the  Son  of  God  is  the  Word 
of  God,  and  that  other  angels  are  spirits  [breaths.]  For 
a  word  is  breath  uttered  with  a  voice  signifying  some- 
thing. But  since  a  word  and  a  breath  are  uttei-ed  through 
different  organs,  (e.  g.  the  breath  proceedst  hrough  the 
nostrils,  and  the  word  through  the  mouth,)  there  is,  a 
great  difference  between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  other 
angels.  They  proceeded  from  God  as  silent  breaths ;  for 
they  were  not  created  to  instruct,  but  to  perform  min- 
isterial service.  He,  indeed,  although  a  spirit  too,  yet 
proceeded  from  the  mouth  of  God,  with  a  noise  and  sound, 
i.  e,  as  a  word,  for  the  reason  he  was  about  to  use  his 
voice  in  addressing  the  people,  i.  e.  he  was  to  be  a 
teacher  of  divine  doctrines.  With  propriety,  therefore, 
he  is  called  the  Word  of  God,  because  God,  by  his  in- 
describable power,  formed  into  the  image  of  his  own 
majesty,  the  vocal  spirit  which  proceeded  from  his 
mouth,  who  was  conceivedj  not  in  the  womb  but  in  the 
mind,  and  who  flourishes  with  his  own  understanding 
and  wisdom,  &;c."* 

*  Quomodo  ig-itur  procreavit? ilium  Dei  filium   Dei  esse  ser- 

monem,  itemque  cacteros  angelos  Dei  spiritus  esse.  Nam  sermo  est 
spiritus  cum  voce  aliquid  signiricante  prolatus.  Sed  tamen,  quoniam 
spiritus  et  serrao  diversis  partibus  proteruntur,  (siquidem  spiritus 
naribus,  ore  sermo  procedit,)  magna  inter  hunc  Dei  filium  et  caeteros 
angelos  differentia  est.  Illi  enim  ex  Deo  taciti  spiritus  exierunt; 
quia  non  ad  doctrinam  Dei  tradendam,  sed  ad  ministerium  creabantur. 
Ille  vero,  cum  sit  ipse  spiritus,  tamen  cum  voce  et  sono  ex  Dei  ore 
processit  sicut  verbum,  scilicet  ea  ratione,  quia  voce  ejus  ad  populum 
fuerat  usurus,  i.  e.  quod  ille  magister  futurus  esset  doctrinae  Dei, 
&c."     Institutt.  IV.  c.  8. 


go  OPINIONS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.    II. 

Who  does  not  recognize  in  this,  the  grossness  of  Ter- 
tulHan  made  still  grosser  ?  It  is  not  enough  to  say,  with 
Tertullian,  that  the  Logos  was  produced  in  that  mo- 
ment, when  God  said  Let  there  he  light ;  but  the  fact 
that  the  breath  of  God  was  propelled  from  the  mouth, 
in  an  audible  word,  instead  of  flowing  silently  through 
the  nostrils,  makes  the  difference  in  nature,  between  the 
Son  and  the  angels. 

In  respect  to  spiritual  ideas  of  the  divine  Being,  we 
may  well  ask.  How  much  had  Lactantius  advanced,  by 
his  profession  of  Christianity,  beyond  his  previous  hea- 
then condition  ? 

But  I  find  myself  already  in  the  fourth  century,  and 
with  unfeigned  pleasure  recur  to  my  original  design,  to  in- 
vestigate the  opinions  of  only  the  early  fathers.  Here 
then  I  stop ;  and  here  I  will  end  this  long  letter,  and 
tedious,  but  I  hope  not  useless  investigation,  after  two 
or  three  remarks. 

I  have  forborne  to  recite  the  testimonies  of 

DIONYSIUS, 

Bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  255 — 269  ;  not  because  I  intend- 
ed to  pass  him  by,  but  to  continue  unbroken  the  testi- 
monies of  those,  who  appeared  to  be  of  an  opinion,  simi- 
lar to  that  of  Justin  and  others  before  cited.  I  take  this 
opportunity  of  saying,  that  Dionysius  appears,  from  the 
fragment  of  his  address  to  the  Sabellians  and  their  op- 
ponents in  Africa,  preserved  by  x\thanasius,*  to  have 
been  very  nearly,  if  not  quite,  of  the  same  opinion  witlx 
that  expressed  in  the  creed  of  the  Council  of  Nice. 

♦Athanas.  de  decret.  Synod.  Nic.  §  26.  Tom.  I.  p.  231.  332.  edit. 
Beoedict. 


Let.  11.)  OPINIONS  of  the  early  fathers.  61 

With  the  exception  of  this  single  father,  I  have  not 
been  able  to  find  testimonies  in  any  other  early  writer 
of  eminence,  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  genera- 
tion, as  stated  in  the  Nicene  creed.  Origen,  and 
probably  some  of  his  immediate  disciples,  maintained 
this  doctrine  ;  but  on  different  grounds  from  those  of  the 
Council  of  Nice.  Their  ground  of  argument  was  rather 
philosophical  than  Scriptural ;  believing  that  a  genera- 
tion in  time,  would  detract  from  the  immutability  of  the 
divine  nature.  The  creed  attributed  to  Lucian  is  Indefi- 
nite; the  anathema  added  at  the  close  of  the  baptismal 
formula,  somewhat  uncertain  in  its  origin.  The  genuine- 
ness of  the  creed  attributed  to  Gregory  Thaumaturgus, 
is  very  suspicious  ;  altogether  too  much  so  to  be  relied 
on.  Irenaeus,  more  scriptural  and  less  tainted  with 
philosophy  than  any  of  the  early  fathers,  Greek  or  Ro- 
man, has  forborne,  in  any  special  manner,  to  explain  his 
views  on  the  point  in  question,  holding  all  speculations 
about  it  to  be  unlawful;  although  from  one  of  his  ex- 
pressions, it  appears  probable  that  he  embraced  the  comraon 
doctrine. 

But  waving  all  the  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way 
of  obtaining  satisfactory  evidence  in  favour  of  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  and  necessary  generation^  from  the  opin- 
ions of  the  fathers  and  creeds  just  named  ;  and  conced- 
ing that  they  are  to  be  reckoned  in  favour  of  this  doc- 
trine ;  can  I  say  with  you,  that  "  the  early  Christian  wri- 
ters constantly  declared  that  it  was  firmly  to  be  believ- 
ed ?"  With  the  evidence  before  me,  which  the  preced- 
ing pages  develope,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say  this.  I 
retire  then  from  the  investigation  of  the  historical  fact, 
which  has  thus  far  occupied  me,  with  overwhelming 
doubts  of  the  position  which  you  have  advanced  in  re- 


62  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.        [LeT.  III. 

gard  to  it ;  and  sick,  to  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  of  all 
the  philosophical  speculations  among  the  fathers,  on  the 
manner  in  which  the  distinctions  or  persons  of  the  God- 
head are  related  to  each  other. 


LETTER  III. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Having  completed  my  investigation  of  the  opinions  of 
the  early  Fathers,  I  might  now  proceed  to  the  scriptu- 
ral investigation  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  But  there 
is  an  inquiry  which  has  occurred  to  my  own  mind,  and 
which  I  presume  will  naturally  occur  to  the  mind  of  oth- 
ers, respecting  the  rise  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  that  ought 
not  to  be  passed  in  silence.  If  the  predominant  opin- 
ion of  the  leading  Fathers,  in  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies, be  such  as  has  now  been  represented  ;  how  came 
it  to  pass,  that  a  general  Council  of  several  hundred  bish- 
ops, assembled  at  Nice  in  A.  D.  325,  should  by  an  over- 
whelming majority  adopt  and  sanction  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  generation  ? 

A  protracted  and  laboured  answer  to  this  question, 
would  be  out  of  place  here.  I  shall  only  state  in  a 
few  words,  the  views  which,  so  far  as  I  am  acquainted 
with  the  subject,  I  have  been  led  to  entertain. 

(1.)  The  Arian  party  had  made  a  great  schism  in 
the  church  ;  and  the  natural  consequence  of  the  strong 
opposition  to  it,  which  arose  from  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  divines  of  that  time,  was  a  revolt  to  an 
opinion,  which   seemed  to   be  very   conspicuously  oppo- 


Let.    III.]  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  63 

site.     Arlus  maintained  that  Christ  was  a  created  beinor 

o 

and  produced  in  time.  His  opponents  took  opposite 
ground  in  both  these  respects  ;  averring  that  he  was  be- 
gotten and  eternally  begotten. 

(2.)  The  difficulties,  which  continually  arose  out  of 
the  opinions  of  Justin,  Tertullian,  and  others  of  the  same 
sentiments,  became  more  and  more  palpable,  as  the 
church  became  more  enlightened  in  respect  to  the  true 
nature  of  the  divine  Being,  and  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  were  farther  removed  from 
the  religion  and  philosophy  of  the  heathen.  How 
the  Logos  could  be  God  and  yet  be  begotten  in 
time,  was  a  difficulty  at  which  multitudes  were  stum- 
bled ;  and  if  this  were  in  truth  conceded,  the  way  to  em- 
brace Arianism  seemed  to  be  open,  and  accompanied 
with  little  difficulty.  It  was  the  natural  effect  of  more 
enlightened  ideas  of  the  divine  Nature,  and  of  a  wish  to 
remove  a  stumbling  block  from  the  path  of  plain  Chris- 
tians, that  the  generation  of  the  Son  should  come  to  be 
regarded  as  eternal. 

The  Nicene  Creed  is  unquestionably  a  very  great 
advance,  in  respect  to  rational  views  of  God,  upon  the 
predominant  speculations  of  the  second  and  third  Cen- 
turies, in  regard  to  this  subject.  Whatever  difficulties 
may  attend  it,  I  think  no  one,  enlightened  in  regard  to 
the  spirituality  and  immutability  of  the  divine  Nature, 
can  now  hesitate  to  say,  that  it  is  incomparably  prefera- 
ble to  the  sentiments  of  most  of  the  fathers  whose 
views  have  been  developed  in  the  preceding  pages.  The 
Son,  who  is  acknowledged  as  God,  has  divine  honours 
and  attributes  ascribed  to  him.  He  differs  from  the 
Father,  only  in  the  fact  that  he  is  begotten,  or  derived 
from  him ;  but  still  is  represented  as  always   coexistent 


64  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.      [LeT.  Ill, 

with  him.  To  all  who  believe  in  the  true  divinity  of 
Christ,  this  must  appear  incomparably  more  consistent 
than  the  doctrine  of  simple  antemundane  generation.  And 
indeed,  so  satisfactory  has  this  view  been  to  the  Church 
in  general,  that  ever  since  the  time  of  the  council  of 
Nice,  with  the  exception  of  the  occasional  predominan- 
cy of  Arianism,  it  has  been  acquiesced  in  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  Christian  world.  In  respect  to  this 
fact,  I  have  no  doubt ;  and  I  most  cheerfully  concede  it. 
I  acknowledge  that  I  feel  strongly  moved  by  its  influ- 
ence ;  and  I  hesitate  whether  it  would  not  be  adven- 
turous, and  whether  it  may  not  subject  me  to  the  impu- 
tation of  hankering  after  new  and  paradoxical  opinions, 
to  endeavour  to  establish  the  correctness  of  a  sentiment, 
which  differs  from  that  which  has  been  so  generally  re- 
ceived.    But  of  this  more  hereafter. 

After  all,  the  fact  that  the>Nicene  creed  maintains  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  cannot  prove,  by  itself, 
that  the  leading  fathers  of  the  two  preceding  centuries 
actually  maintained  this  sentiment.  We  know  that  the 
Church  has  changed  its  opinions  on  various  points  of  re- 
ligious doctrine,  at  ditferent  times,  by  the  influence  of 
popular  and  learned  men,  and  powerful  reasoners.  The 
works  of  the  Antenicene  fathers  must  speak  for  them- 
selves ;  and  to  them  I  have  already  made  the  appeal. 
Until  the  testimonies  which  have  been  adduced  arc 
shown  to  be  irrelevant,  or  nugatory,  whatever  may  be 
the  difliculties  of  accounting  for  the  sentiments  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  I  must  believe,  that  the  Antenicene 
fathers,  in  general,  did  not  maintain  the  doctrine  of  e/er- 
nal  and  necessary  generation. 

Having  expressed  with  so  much  freedom  my  views  re- 
specting the  sentiments  of  most  of  the   early  fathers,  I 


Let.  III.]      REMARKS  ON   THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  65 

cannot  help  feeling,  that  it  would  be  doing  those  distin- 
guished men  (raanj  of  whom  sealed  with  their  blood  the 
sincerity  of  their  Christian  profession)  great  injustice,  to 
pass  on  without  making  some  apology  for  them  in  re- 
spect to  their  opinions,  and  endeavouring  to  show  how 
they  were  led  to  embrace  them.  This  I  will  do,  in  as 
brief  a  manner  as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  permit. 

1.  Every  man,  in  all  his  reasonings  about  psychologi- 
cal and  metaphysical  subjects,  is  influenced  more  or  less 
by  the  current  philosophy  of  the  times  in  which  he  lives. 
In  cases  where  he  is  no  devotee  to  any  system  of  phi- 
losophy, or  not  particularly  given  to  the  study  of  it,  this 
influence,  though  insensible  to  him,  is  still  very  consid- 
erable. Who,  for  example,  in  the  English  world,  is  not 
influenced  in  whatever  he  says  about  the  intellectual 
and  metaphysical  nature  of  man,  by  the  philosophy  of 
Locke,  or  Stewart,  or  Brown?  And  in  all  our  final 
views  of  the  nature  and  operations  of  the  divine  Being, 
are  we  not  greatly  influenced  by  the  previous  deduc- 
tions of  pure  reason,  in  respect  to  his  nature  and  attri- 
butes ? 

Such  too  was  the  case  of  the  fathers,  whose  senti- 
ments have  been  produced  in  the  preceding  pages. 
Most  of  them  had  been,  in  earlier  life,  Platonic  philoso- 
phers ;  at  least,  they  were  adherents  to  the  New  Pla- 
tonic School,  which  by  a  selection  from  various  systems 
of  philosophy,  and  a  combination  of  them  with  some  of 
the  leadmg  doctrines  of  Plato,  had  formed  what  is  call- 
ed Syncretism,  i.  e.  mixed  or  eclectic  Philosophy. 

The   charge  has  been   often   made   against  these  fa- 
thers, of  corrupting   the  Christian  religion  by  the  intro- 
duction of  Platonic  philosophy.     They  have  had   some 
learned  vindicators  also.     Both  sides   have  gone   to  ex- 
10 


66  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.      [LeT.  111. 

tremes  :  as  it  often  happens  In  disputes,  not  among  the 
unlearned  only,  but  among  the  learned;  specially  when 
men  of  ardent  feelings  become  engaged  in  them.  More 
recent,  thorough,  and  impartial  investigation  has  shewn, 
I  believe  to  the  general  satisfaction  of  the  learned,  that 
the  fathers  cannot  be  justly  charged  with  designed  cor- 
ruption of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  in  any  respect, 
through  the  introduction  of  Platonic  philosophy.  The 
late  Professor  Keil,  of  Leipzick,  has  nearly  put  an  end 
to  this  question.* 

But  still,  as  the  great  body  of  the  Antenicene  fathers 
were  attached  to  the  Platonic  philosophy,  like  all  other 
men  who  reason  on  subjects  where  an  appeal  to  philos- 
ophy is  made,  they  were  unquestionably  influenced  in 
thclv  modes  of  explanation,  by  the  philosophy  which  they 
had  cultivated. 

2.  In  answering  the  objections  that  are  made  to  the 
system  of  religion  which  men  embrace,  an  appeal  is  usu- 
ally made  to  those  arguments^  which  will  put  to  si- 
lence tlie  opponents  of  it ;  and  of  course,  to  those  prin- 
ciples of  philosophy  or  reasoning,  which  both  parties 
hold  in  common.  Even  in  silencing  the  speculative  ob- 
jections which  arise  in  our  minds,  we  appeal  to  princi- 
j)les  of  reasoning  that  have  usually  satisfied  us  ;  and 
when  we  have  done  this,  it  is  common  to  rest  contented 
with  it,  and  to  push  our  inquiries  no  farther. 

Let  us  now  go  back,  and  place  ourselves,  if  possible, 
in  the  condition  of  the  Antenicene  fathers.  They  lived 
at  a  time,  when  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Platonic  School 
had  an  almost  universal  influence,  in  all  the  countries 
where    they  resided.     If  now  this  philosophy  admitted 

*  Keil,  de  Doctoribus  Vet.  Eccles.  culpa  corruptae  per  Platonicas 
Sententias  Theologiae  liberandis  Exercitationes. 


Let.  III.]      REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  67 

and  advocated  a  Logos,  which  emanated  from  God,  was 
the  creator  of  the  world,  and  possessed  divine  attrlhutes, 
nothing  was  more  natural  than  to  fall  into  the  belief, 
that  the  same  Logos  was  intended  by  John  in  his  writ- 
ings :  although  he  was  revealed  by  this  apostle  as  they 
all  believed,  in  a  manner  far  more  perfect  than  what 
was  known  to  the  philosophers  ;  and  as  clothed  with 
attributes  far  more  noble  and  exalted,  than  they  in  gen- 
eral assigned  to  him. 

Plato  himself  often  speaks  of  a  Loc^os  or  JYous,  to 
which  he  ascribes  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  which 
he  calls  6  navioDv  deioTaioCy  the  most  divine  of  all  things. 
His  poetic  personifications  of  this  Logos  have  been  un- 
derstood by  many  of  his  interpreters,  both  in  ancient  and 
modern  times,  as  representations  of  a  real  hypostasis. 
But  thouo^h  more  recent  investiorators  have  shewn  that 
this  is  not  his  real  meaning,  but  that  he  merely  designs 
to  personify  the  attributes  of  the  Deity  ;  still,  his  lan- 
guage is  such  as  might  easily  give  rise  to  the  belief,  that 
he  viewed  the  Logos  as  a  real  hypostasis.  No  wonder, 
then,  that  when  the  oriental  emanation-philosophy  came 
to  be  intermixed  with  his  system,  (as  it  did  after  the  con- 
quests of  Alexander,  and  in  consequence  of  the  frequent 
intercourse  that  followed  of  the  Greeks  with  the  East,) 
that  the  New  Platonics,  or  Eclectic  philosophers  should 
maintain  the  real  personality  of  Plato's  Logos.  The 
Oriental  philosophy  inculcated,  as  a  first  principle,  the 
doctrine  of  emanation  from  the  Deity.  God  was  repre- 
sented as  original  light;  and  from  him,  as  beams  from 
the  Sun,  flowed  subordinate  divinities  or  Eons,  who  cre- 
ated and  governed  the  world.  The  Platonic  school  of 
Alexandria  amalgamated  this  principle,  in  part,  with 
their  own  philosophy.     It  is   found    most  fully  develop- 


68  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.      [LeT.  III. 

ed,  in  the  works  of  Plotinus  and  Porphyry,  New  Plato- 
nics of  the  third  century.  But  Numenius  of  Apamea,  a 
Syrian  by  birth,  who  Hved  in  the  time  of  the  Antonines, 
was  undoubtedly  a  disciple  of  this  school;  which  shows 
that  the  sentiments  are  of  much  earlier  date  than  the 
time  of  Porphyry.  Numenius  speaks  of  a  second  God, 
"whom  he  calls  Aoyog  and  dt^ixiovgyogy  and  whom  he  rep- 
resents as  an  emanation  from  the  supreme  God.  And 
to  prove  that  the  supreme  God  suiFered  no  change  by 
such  an  emanation,  he  employs  the  very  same  meta- 
phors or  comparisons,  that  were  so  commonly  employed 
by  the  Antenicene  fathers  "  A  torch,"  says  he,  "  still 
remains  the  same,  although  it  kindles  another  torch.  In- 
struction can  pass  from  a  teacher  to  his  pupils,  and  yet 
the  teacher  suffer  no  change.  So  the  dj^i^iovgyog  could 
emanate  from  the  supreme  God,  and  yet  the  latter  re- 
main unchanged  in  his  perfections.'"^ 

There  are  abundant  proofs,  that  this  mode  of  repre- 
senting the  Logos  as  an  emanation  from  God,  was  much 
older  than  Numenius  ;  and  that  it  was  not  by  any  means 
confined  to  heathen  philosophers.  The  book  of  Wis- 
dom, written  before  the  Christian  era,  (which  most  of 
the  Antenicene  fathers  received  as  canonical,)  repre- 
sents Wisdom  or  the  Logos  as  the  breath  of  the  Al- 
mighty, an  emanation  of  the  Godhead,  the  pure  radi- 
ance of  the  majesty  of  the  Almighty,  the  irradiation  of 
the  eternal  light,  the  spotless  reflection  of  divine  ope- 
rating power,  the  image  of  the  All-Good.  By  it  is  every 
thing  created  ;  it  overlooks  and  penetrates  through  all 
things ;  it   preserves  and  directs   all    things,  in  the  best 

*  Vide  in  Euseb.  Praep.  Evang.  Lib.  XI.  c.  18  ;  who  has  g-iven  a 
long  extract  from  Numenius,  that  deserves  to  be  read  throughout. 


Let.  hi.]  remarks  on  the  early  fathers.  69 

manner.  It  knows  the  secret  thoughts  of  God,  and  Is 
the  leader  In  all  his  works.*" 

If  here  be  not  an  absolute  hypostasis  of  wisdom  or  the 
Logos,  (as  most  of  the  learned  have  been  inclined  to  be- 
lieve,) there  is  certainly  so  close  an  approximation  to  it, 
that  the  fathers  might  easily  mistake  it  for  one,  and  ap- 
ply it  (as  they  did)  to  the  explanation  of  the  Logos  of 
John. 

But  in  a  special  manner,  the  writings  of  the  cele- 
brated Alexandrine  philosopher,  Philo  Judaeus,  a  co- 
temporary  during  the  latter  part  of  his  life  with  the 
apostles,  contributed  to  spread  wide  the  speculations  of 
the  New  Platonics  about  the  Logos.  Philo  amalgamat- 
ed the  Jewish  with  the  Platonic  philosophy  ;  so  that 
being  a  writer  more  rational.  Scriptural,  and  elevated  in 
his  moral  and  religious  maxims,  than  the  heathen  phi- 
losophers, his  works  would  necessarily  be  read  with 
more  avidity,  by  that  class  of  the  new  Platonists,  who 
admitted  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  Philo 
distinguishes  between  the  Aoyog  evdiat^erog  and  Aoyog  npo- 
(popi7(og ^t  the  latter  of  which  he  represents  as  a  being 
emenated  or  begotten,  not  uncreated  like  the  great  Su- 
preme, nor  created  like  other  beings,  but  a  medium  be- 
tween the  two.J  This  Logos  he  calls  first  born  Son,§ 
and  represents  all  things  as  created,  preserved  and  go- 
verned by  him. II  This  is  he,  who  appeared  to  the  pa- 
triarchs of  the   Old  Tesament ;  for  the   Supreme  God, 

*  Vid.  Chapters  VII.  VIII.  IX. 

tDe  vita  Mosis,  III.  672.  C.  edit.  Paris. 

I  Q,uis  rer.  div.  haeres  ?  Tom.  IV^  p.  90.  edit.  Pfeiflcr. 

§  De  Agricult.  Tom.  III.  p.  26.  I)e  Somn.  Tom.  V.  p.  98.  Vide 
Euseb.  Evang.  Praep.  Lib.  VII.  c  13. — extracts  from  Philo. 

II  De  Mundi  Opific.  Tom.  II.  p.  66.  Ibid.  p.  20.  De  Somn.  Tom. 
V.  p.  272. 


70  EEMARKS  ON   THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  ITL 

who  cannot  be  limited  by  any  place,  could  not  appear  in 
a  visible  form.*  From  this  time  the  Logos  became  the 
advocate  of  men  with  God.t  God  sends  him  into  virtu- 
ous souls,  who  are  instructed  by  him. J  He  is  the  secon- 
dary God,  who  is  subordinate  to  the  Supreme.§ 

Here  then,  before  the  new  Testament  was  written, 
we  find  nearly  every  speculation,  which  was  adopted  by 
the  early  fathers  and  applied  to  the  Logos  of  the  Evan- 
gelist John.  The  philosophy  which  presented  these 
speculations,  had  a  predominant  overwhelming  influence, 
in  their  times.  Most  of  them  had  not  only  been  disci- 
ples, but  teachers  of  it.  And  besides  this,  it  was  the 
universal  belief  among  speculating  Christians  of  that  pe- 
riod, that  the  Logos  of  whom  John  speaks  was  the  very 
same  spirit  of  wisdom,  which  operated  partially  in  all 
the  better  part  of  the  heathen  philosophers,  and  that 
these  had  borrowed  all  their  most  valuable  truths  from 
the  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews. 

What  now  could  be  more  natural,  than  for  these  fa- 
thers to  apply  the  attributes  of  their  philosophical  Lo- 
gos to  the  Logos  of  John  ?  And  specially  so,  when  one 
and  all  agreed,  that  Wisdom,  as  described  in  the  eighth 
ciiapter  of  Proverbs,  must  be  the  same  as  the  Logos 
mentioned  by  the  Evangelist.  The  predicates  of  wis- 
dom, mentioned  in  this  chapter,  certainly  bear  a  very 
strong  resemblance  to  those  ascribed  to  the  Logos,  by 
the  book  of  Wisdom,  and  by  Philo  Judaeus  in  his  works. 

*Legg.  Alienor.  Tom.  I.  p.  362,  3G3.  Be  Somn,  Tom.  V.  p.  30. 
104. 

t  Quis  rer.  divin.  haeres  ?  Tom  IV.  p.  90. 

+  De  Somn.  Tom.  V.  p.  204.  Comp.  De  Gigant.  T.  II.  p.  3G6. 

§  Lpg<^.  AUegor.  T.  I.  p.  228.  lb.  pp.  362,  363.  Vide  etiam  in 
Euseb.  Praep.  Evang.  Lib.  VII.  c.  13. 


Let.  IIK]  remarks  on  the  early  fathers.  li 

Specially  is  the  reseaiblance  strong,  when  the  Septuagint 
Version  is  regarded  as  the  true  text  of  the  Scriptures; 
and  it  is  almost  superfluous  to  say  that  this  was  the  Bi- 
ble of  the  Antenicene  fathers,  for  none  of  them  could 
read  the  original  text,  if  Origen  be  excepted.  Even 
his  personal  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  is  very  question- 
able. 

One  remarkable  mistake  either  in  the  original  Ver- 
sion itself  of  the  Septuagint,  or  in  those  MSS.  which  the 
fathers  used,  contributed  greatly  to  encourage  the  spec- 
ulations of  the  Antenicene  fathers  about  the  orioin  of  the 

o 

Logos  (jLQocpoQLTtog.^  Instead  of  translating  as  the  He- 
brew runs,  "The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of 
his  way,"  (^Hvgiog  exir^Gajo  jU€  jr^v  agyi^^/v  ri^?  odou  ccviovy) 
they  read  in  their  copies,  "  The  Lord  created  [emiae) 
me  in  the  beginning  of  his  ways." 

Moreover,  it  is  afterwards  said,  in  the  same  chapter, 
(v.  25,)  "  Before  the  mountains  were  settled,  before 
the  hills,  was  1  brought  for  th,'^''  The  question  does  not 
seem  even  to  have  been  debated,  whether  the  Logos  of 
John  was  actually  the  same  as  this  Wisdom;  or  whe- 
ther a  mere  poetic  personification  of  Wisdom,  and  not  a 
real  hypostasis  is  meant ;  all  taking  it  for  granted,  that 
the  point  admitted  of  no  debate.  What  then  could  be 
more  natural,  than  to  apply  the  doctrines  of  the  philoso- 
phy, which  then  prevailed  so  generally,  to  the  explana- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  Logos  ;  when  they  thought 
themselves  fully  authorized  to  do  it,  by  tfie  according 
voice  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures?  It  would  have  been 
next  to  miraculous,  if  they  had  not  done  so. 

3.  One  other  consideration  should  be  stated.  Most  of 
the  early  fathers  were  employed,  more  or  less.  In  defend- 
ing Christianity  against  the  attacks  of  heathen  philoso- 


72  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.      [LeT.  III. 

phers,  or  in  recommending  it  to  the  consideration  of  the 
heathen.  The  polytheistic  philosophers  were  con- 
tinually reproaching  Christians,  with  reverencing  and 
adoring  only  a  crucified  malefactor.  The  reply  to  this 
was  very  natural.  "  We  adore  no  mere  mortal.  The 
Logos  incarnate,  is  what  we  adore.  The  existence  of 
this  very  Logos,  your  best  philosophers  and  you  your- 
selves admit.  You  cannot,  therefore,  reproach  us  with 
forming  an  imaginary  being,  whom  we  hold  to  be  the 
object  of  religious  reverence.  On  your  own  principles, 
our  religion  contains  nothing  that  is  absurd." 

How  natural  and  acceptable  such  a  reply  was  to  the 
fathers,  may  be  easily  understood  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  and  specially  trom  the  frequency  with  which  it  was 
used.  Almost  every  man  in  vindicating  his  side  of  a  dis- 
puted question,  is  satisfied  if  he  can  find  arguments  pro 
re  nata.  If  they  are  effectual  to  silence  his  opponent, 
they  must  needs  be  a  good  kind  of  arguments.  The  fa- 
thers, in  the  full  sincerity  of  their  hearts,  checked  the 
contumelies  of  the  heathen  in  such  a  way  ;  and  as  they 
felt  themselves  to  be  building  on  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
they  hardly  could  have  a  suspicion,  that  there  was  any 
thing  improper,  in  accepting  all  the  aid  which  Platon- 
ism  offered.  Thus  they  at  once  stopped  the  mouths  of 
gainsaycrs,  and  commended  the  religion  which  they  had 
embraced  to  the  heathen,  who  loved  the  study  of  philo- 
sophy. 

4.  One  other  suggestion  must  not  be  omitted.  The 
great  body  of  the  Antenicene  fathers  were,  in  early  life, 
educated  as  heathen.  The  genealogies  of  the  gods  had 
made  a  deep  impression  on  their  minds;  and  they  were, 
before  conversion  to  Christianity,  at  a  great  remove  from 
rational  and  spiritual  ideas  of  the  divine  nature.     After 


Let.    III.]  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  73 

conversion,  we  cannot  suppose  that  all  the  remains  of 
their  former  notions  and  habits  would  at  once  be  com- 
pletely annihilated.  Emanation  or  generation,  applied 
to  the  divine  nature,  presented  nothing  revolting  to  them  ; 
as  all  their  old  habits  of  thinking  had  been  in  that  way. 
Removing,  then,  from  the  generation  of  the  Logos  all 
that  was  carnal  and  corporeal,  and  understanding  it  on- 
ly in  a  spiritual,  mental,  or  metaphysical  sense,  there 
was  nothing  repulsive  to  their  minds  in  it ;  even  after 
they  were  taught  by  Cliristianity  better  views  than  they 
had  formerly  entertained,  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
Divinity.  Can  we  wonder  at  this,  when  we  know  how 
long  the  Apostles  persisted  in  their  Jewish  notions  about 
the  temporal  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  and  how  far  re- 
moved they  were,  for  a  long  time,  from  admitting  either 
the  necessity  or  the  possibility  of  his  death  ? 

Thus  prepared  by  early  education,  by  all  the  preju- 
dices of  youth,  and  by  all  the  influence  of  philosophy  to 
admit  of  derived  Divinity,  and  to  find  it  in  the  Logos, 
as  the  philosophers  themselves  had  done  ;  it  would  have 
been  truly  wonderful,  if  they  had  not  been  tinctured  with 
the  views  which  they  did  entertain.  They  did  indeed 
believe  that  God  was  a  Spirit.  But  a  Spirit,  in  the 
view  of  that  age,  was  far  less  removed  from  a  corpore- 
al being,  than  we  are  accustomed  to  believe.  Let  us 
hear  Tertullian,  for  a  moment  on  this  subject.  "Quis  ne- 

gavit  Deum  corpus  esse,  etsi  Deus  spiritus  est spiri- 

tus  enira  corpus  sui  generis  in  sua  efligie.*  In  like  man- 
ner he  asserts  that  souls  are  corporeal.t  The  ditference 
between  spiritual  and  material  beings,  seems,  in  that 
ao-e,  to  have  been  considered  as  rather  modal  than  es- 
sential.    Spirits  were  regarded  as  bodies  impalpable  to 

*  Lib.  advers.  Prax.  c.  7.         t  De  anima.  c.  7. 
11 


74  REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.       [LeT.  III. 

corporeal  view,  and  made  up  of  infinitely  attenuated 
particles  of  matter,  too  subtile  to  be  detected  by  the 
senses.* 

With  such  views  of  the  nature  of  God  and  of  spirits,  is 
it  strange  that  they  admitted  the  notions  respecting  the 
Logos,  of  which  an  account  has  been  given  in  the  pre- 
ceding letter  ? 

We,  who  are  taught  from  infancy  to  believe  in  the 
simplicity,  spirituality,  self-existence,  independence,  and 
immutability  of  the  divine  nature,  can  be  brought  only 
by  violence  to  reason  as  the  fathers  did.  Still  this  does 
not  criminate  them.  With  all  our  light  and  all  our 
privileges,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  we  exhibit  more  of 
the  Christian  temper,  and  more  devotedness  to  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Redeemer,  than  they  did. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  philosophi- 
cal speculations  of  the  fathers  about  the  nature  and  ori- 
gin of  the  Logos,  or  Son  of  God,  never  affected  the  mass 
of  unlearned  Christians.  They  continued  in  the  more 
simple  belief  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost ;  as  all  the 
popular  Creeds,  before  the  council  of  Nice,  abundantly 
testify.  It  would  be  just  as  rational,  to  suppose  that 
the  metaphysical  subtilties  of  the  School-divines  and  of 
philosophizing  theologians  affect  the  great  mass  of  the 
common  peoj)le  now,  as  that  the  subtilities  of  the  Fa- 
thers affected  the  unlearned  at  that  period.  How  oft- 
en this  obvious  principle  has  been  overlooked  by  modern 
disputants,  must  be  evident  to  every  one,  who  is  well  in- 
formed of  the  state  of  polemic  theology. 

A  moderate  acquaintance  with  the    sacred  exegesis 

*  See  Travels  of  younger  Anacharsis,  Part  VII.  note  1.  Muen- 
scher,  Dogmengeschichte,  Th.  I.  S.  364,  &c.  Martini,  Geschichte  des 
Logos,  S.  100, 


Let.  III.]      REMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  75 

of  the  early  fathers  will  suffice  to  convince  any  one,  that 
the  sound  principles  of  this  art  were  very  imperfectly  un- 
derstood by  them.  We  need  not  be  surprised,  then,  that 
they  found  the  Logos  of  John,  in  the  8th  chapter  of 
Proverbs.  At  the  present  hour,  after  the  lapse  of  more 
than  fifteen  centuries,  and  with  all  the  advantages  which 
commentaries  and  lexicons  can  now  offer  to  the  interpre- 
ters of  Scriptures,  there  are  mulitudes  of  expositors,  who 
still  find  the  Logos  in  the  same  passage  of  Solomon's  writ- 
ings. Shall  it  be  thought  strange,  then,  that  the  Fathers 
did  so;  when  it  was  in  perfect  consonance  with  the 
reigning  philosophy  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived  ? 

Permit  me,  after  thus  endeavouring  to  show  how  we 
may  account  for  it  that  the  early  fathers  reasoned  as 
they  did  about  the  Logos,  to  add  a  few  remarks,  on  the 
abuse  of  their  opinions ;  which  has  often  happened  among 
those,  who  have  been  more  zealous  to  promote  party 
sentiments,  than  to  obtain  simple  views  of  truth. 

It  has  often  been  said,  that  "  any  thing  can  be  proved 
from  the  fathers."  And  this  is  really  true,  provided  one 
may  be  permitted  to  use  them  in  the  way  in  which  those 
have  done,  who  wished  to  prove  any  thing  i^vom  them.  I 
could  refer  to  Dr.  Priestley's  History  of  Corruptions  as 
a  striking  example.  There  can  be  nothing  more  certain, 
than  that  the  great  body  of  the  Fathers  never  dreamed 
of  defending  sentiments  such  as  those  of  Priestley.  And 
yet,  with  profound  unacquaintance  with  the  nature  and 
spirit  of  the  times  in  which  the  fathers  lived,  and  of  the 
exegesis  which  must  be  applied  to  them,  he  has  contriv- 
ed to  make  them  say  many  things,  which,  he  would  fain 
have  us  believe,  accord  with  his  own  views.  I  cannot 
do  better  justice  to  such  an  effort,  than  in  the  words  of 
Dr.  Muenscher,  a  consummate  patristical  scholar,  and  at 


7G  RExMARKS  ON  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  [LeT.  III. 

least,  one  whose  testimony  will  not  be  thought  to  be 
warped  by  any  attachment  to  orthodoxy.  "  A  late 
work,"  says  he,  (Dogmengeschichte,  Band  ].  s.  80.) 
"wherein  the  celebrated  Dissenter,  J.  Priestley,  aimed 
to  shew  the  corruptions  of  Christianity,  has,  through  the 
fame  of  its  author,  excited  greater  attention  than  its 
superficial  contents^  and  its  ignorance  of  the  sources  of  his- 
tory, which  every  ivhere  betrays  ilsclf,  deserve." 

So  judges  one  of  the  best  patristical  scholars  now  liv- 
ing, from  a  mere  sense  of  literary  justice.  And  so  might 
he  judge  of  many  others,  who  have  walked  in  Priestley's 
steps  ;  and  of  not  a  few,  who  have  been  his  opposers. 

Nothing  is  more  evident,  than  that  to  form  a  correct 
judgment  of  the  language  of  the  early  fathers,  we  must 
have  a  good  acquaintance  with  their  modes  of  reasoning 
and  philosopliizing.  Having  most  of  them  been  educat- 
ed with  polytheistic  notions,  they  did  not  take  offence, 
as  we  now  do,  at  many  things,  which  evidently  appear 
to  us  to  detract  from  the  spirituality  and  immutability  of 
the  diviijc  nature.  We  should  make  these  allowances  when 
we  read  them  ;  and  making  these,  we  sliall  be  disposed 
to  think  more  favourably  of  their  real  sentioaents  in  re- 
spect to  religion,  than  we  otherwise  could  do.  Of  their 
sincere  attachment  to  Christianity,  the  testimony  is  writ- 
ten in  blood.  That  they  worshipped  the  Saviour — that 
they  paid  him  religious  homage — that  they,  in  geiieral, 
regarded  the  Logos  or  divine  nature  in  the  Saviour,  as 
having  in  some  manner  or  other  existed  from  all  eter- 
nity— I  cannot  doubt.  I  say  this,  after  repeated  and 
somewhat  extensive  examination.  But  that  they  taught 
what  agrees  with  the  Scriptures,  or  v/nh  reason,  respect- 
ing the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  is  what  I  do  not 
believe ;  and  cannot,  until  the  whole  ground  of  my  present 
convictions  is  removed. 


LETTER  IV. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

If  possible,  I  now  more  than  ever  feel  the  truth  of 
your  just  and  tru!y  Protestant  sentiment,  that  •'  what  is 
not  ffjund  in  Scripture,  however  extensively  and  unani- 
mously it  may  have  been  received  by  those  who  bore 
the  Christian  name,  must  be  rejected,  as  forming  no  part 
of  that  precious  system  which  God  has  revealed  to  man 
for  his  salvation."  After  passing  through  an  investiga- 
tion, such  as  that  which  is  exhibited  in  the  two  preced- 
ing letters,  I  cannot  but  feel  gratitude  to  God,  that  he 
has  ordered  my  existence  in  an  age,  when  more  scriptu- 
ral and  rational  views  of  his  perfections  are  entertained, 
than  were  cherished  by  many  of  the  distinguished  wri- 
ters, which  have  been  passed  in  review.  Not  that  I 
undervalue  them,  or  feel  in  any  measure  disposed  to 
treat  them  with  contumely,  or  even  with  indifference. 
Bat  I  do  feel,  that  it  is  a  privilege  to  know  and  believe 
more  fully  and  clearly  than  they  appear  to  have  done, 
that  "God  is  a  spirit ;"  and  that  all  his  nature  and  attri- 
butes must  be  regarded  in  such  a  way,  as  never  to  ob- 
scure this  plain  and  most  interesting  as  well  as  awful 
truth. 

But  I  have  done  with  the  fathers,  and  now  proceed 
to  the  most  important  part  of  my  object,  viz,  to  inquire 

First,  What  is  meant  by  the  doctrine  of  eternal  genera- 
tion ?     And 

Secondly,  Is  this  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures  ? 


78  DEFINITIONS  EXAMINED.  [LeT.   IV. 

The  present  Letter  will   be  devoted   to   the   first   of 
these  questions. 

You  have  not  told  us  expressly  what  we  are  to  un- 
derstand by  eternal  generation.  I  cannot  complain  of 
this  ;  for  you  did  not  undertake,  in  your  Letters,  to  the- 
ologize on  this  point.  But  there  are  two  passages, 
which  indirectly  develope  your  conceptions,  or  at  least 
your  mode  of  expressing  yourself,  relative  to  the  point 
in  question.  In  p.  84,  you  say,  "  We  find  a  certain  three- 
fold mode  of  existence  in  the  Deity,  frequently  referred 
to  in  the  Scriptures,  but  not  explained  ;"  and  in  p.  87, 
you  ask,"  Where  is  the  absurdity  or  contradiction  of  an 
eternal  or  necessary  emanation  from  Him,  (God  the  Fath- 
er,) or  if  you  please,  an  eternal  generation  ?^^ 

The  Scriptures  then,  as  you  aver,  have  left  the  three- 
fold mode  of  existence  unexplained.  May  I  be  permit- 
ted to  ask,  now,  if  teaching  the  doctrine  of  the  eterncd 
and  necessary  emanation  or  generation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
(whom  as  Son  you  view  to  be  the  second  person  in  the 
Trinity,)  be  not  attempting  an  explanation  of  a  subject, 
which  the  sacred  writers  leave  unexplained  ?  Is  not  ex- 
istence or  subsistence  by  emanation,  a  mode  of  existence  ? 
And  does  not  the  original  and  underived  existence  of  the 
Father,  differ  in  mode,  from  the  emanative  existence,  or 
existence  by  generation  of  the  Son  ? 

It  is  not  my  design,  however,  to  suggest  difficulties 
in  regard  to  particular  positions  which  you  have  advanc- 
ed. An  examination  of  the  subject  itself,  as  it  is  devel- 
oped in  the  leading  orthodox  writers,  systematic  and  po- 
lemic, is  my  aim. 

You  will  not  understand  me  as  engaging  to  pass  in 
review,  the  great  body  of  the  theologians  just  named. 
This  would  be  a  task,  tedious  on  account  of  the  protract- 


Let.  IV.]  DEFINITIONS  EXAMINED.  79 

ed  discussion  which  must  necessarily  ensue ;  and  useless, 
because  the  leading  writers  have,  for  the  most  part, 
been  the  models  of  all  the  rest. 

Turretine  may  be  selected  from  the  Reformed  or 
Calvinistic  churches,  as  a  fair  and  very  distinguished 
representative  of  them.  His  extensive  knowledge,  his 
ardent  piety,  and  his  unblemished  reputation,  have  verv 
justly  given  great  influence  to  his  character  and  wri- 
tings.    Let  us  hear  him. 

"  This  wonderful  generation,  [the  eternal  generation 
of  the  Son,]  is  rightly  explained  as  a  communication  of 
essence  from  the  Father,  by  which  the  Son  possesses 
without  division  the  same  essence  with  him,  and  becomes 
most  like  to  him."* 

Again;  "In  that  [generation]  the  same  numerical  es- 
sence  is  communicated,  without  abscission  and  without 
alienation."! 

Again  ;  "  In  this,  [the  Father]  generates  within  him- 
self, and  not  without  himself"^  And  in  the  next  sec- 
tion; "The  Son  is  of  the  Father,  but  not  posterior  to 
the  Father."§ 

The  generation  of  the  Son,  then,  according  to  this 
celebrated  divine,  consists  in  the  eternal  communication 
of  the  same  numerical  essence,  without  division  or  aliena- 
tion, (i.  e.  the  whole  of  the  essence,  as  it  is  very  often  ex- 
pressed) by  the  Father  to  the  Son, 

*  Generatio  ista  admirabilis  recte  exponitur,  per  communicationem 
essentiae  a  Patre,  per  quam  eandem  cum  iilo  essontiarn  Filius  indivisi- 
biliter  possidet,  illi  fit  simillimus.  Turret.  Inst.  Theol.  p.  322.  §  4. 
edit.  Traj.  ad  Rhenum,  1734. 

t  In  ista  [generatione]  communicatur  cadem  nuniero  essentia,  sine 
abscissione  et  alienatione.      Ibid. 

X  In  ista  [Pater]  in  se,  sed  non  extra  se  generat.  Ibid. 

§  Filius  est  a  Patre,  sed  non  post  Patrem.    Ibid.  §  5. 


80  DEFINITIONS  EXAMINED.  [LeT.    IV. 

Some  difficulties  present  themselves,  in  regard  to  this 
definition. 

1.  li'Ahe  same  numerical  essence  without  division,  is 
imparted  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  which  he  himself 
possesses,  it  follows,  that  the  essential  power  or  virtue 
of  the  Father,  by  which  he  produces  or  generates  the 
Son,  (a  power  which  you,  with  Turretine,  hold  to  be 
necessarilij  not  voluntarily  exercised,)  must  also  be  com- 
municated to  him  ;  consequently,  by  virtue  of  this  com- 
munication, the  Son  must  produce  another  person  of  the 
same  condition,  or  homoousian  with  him  ;  this  third  per- 
son, a  fourth;  and  so  on,  without  end.  \(  this  be  deni- 
ed ;  then  it  follows,  that  one  essential  power  or  virtue 
of  the  Father  is  not  communicated  to  the  Son,  viz,  the 
power  of  ?2ecc55«r?/ eternal  generation.  Tfie  definition, 
then,  seems  either  to  be  inconsistent  with  itself,  or  to 
imply  an  infinite  number  of  generations  in  the  Godhead. 
In  cither  case,  it  must  be  untenable. 

I  see  no  way  of  avoiding  this  conclusion,  unless  it  be 
said,  that  Turretine  has  affirmed  a  communication  of  the 
essence  of  the  Father  to  the  Son,  but  not  of  his  attributes. 
Should  any  one  take  refuge  here,  to  defend  tlie  views 
of  Turretine,  lie  may  be  asked,  What  is  known  of  the 
essence  of  God,  when  his  attributes  are  subtracted  ?  Did 
Turretine,  or  any  one  else,  in  reality  ever  attach  any 
other  idea  to  the  term  divine  essence,  than  that  which  is 
the  result  of  a  union  of  those  qualities,  attributes,  or 
predicates  which  are  necessary  to  constitute  the  God- 
head ?  Or  did  the  Father  communicate  his  essence  to 
the  Son,  and  not  communicate  his  attributes  ?  And  if  the 
generating  power  or  attribute  of  the  Father  be,  as  Tur- 
retine and  most  who  speculate  with  him  maintain,  neces- 
sarily exercised,  it  falls,  of  course,  under  the  category  of 


Let.  IV.]  DEFINITIONS   EXAMINED.  81 

the  essential  predicates  of  the  Deitj  ?  Must  the  Father, 
in  communicating  his  ichole  essence  to  the  Son,  commu- 
nicate his  essential  'predicates^  or  not  ?  The  answer  to 
this  question,  leaves  the  definition  of  Turrctlne  liable  to 
all  the  objections  that  have  been  suggested. 

2.  The  definition  asserts,  that  the  same  numerical  essence 
is  communicated  to  the  same  numerical  essence^  (for  Father 
and  Son  have,  as  Turretine  avers,  the  same  numerical 
essence  ;)  which,  after  all  the  efibrts  I  can  make  to  un- 
derstand it,  is,  as  yei^  absolutely  unintelligible  to  me. 
To  understand  how  the  same  numerical  essence  can  be 
said  to  COMMUNICATE  the  wJiole  of  itself  to  the  same  numer- 
ical essence,  I  must  give  over  in  despair,  to  intellects  of 
a  different  order  from  that  which  I  possess. 

To  change  the  terms,  and  to  say  that  the  same  nu- 
merical essence  generates  the  same  numerical  essence  ; 
or  emanates  from  it ;  is  equally  impossible  for  me  to  un- 
derstand. I  do  not  complain  of  it  because  the  subject 
may  be  obscure,  and  above  my  comprehension  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  communication  may  take  place  ; 
but  I  complain  that  the  proposition  itself  is,  to  my  mind, 
unmeaning  and  unintelligible.  I  can  easily  admit,  that 
while  the  numerical  essence  of  the  Godhead  is  one  and 
the  same,  there  may  be  a  distinction  in  it,  the  nature  of 
which  is  above  my  comprehension,  (for  numerical  unity 
of  essence  by  no  means  precludes  the  idea  of  distinction 
in  some  respects  ;)  but  that  one  distinction  in  the  God- 
head should  communicate  the  whole  essence  of  the  God- 
head to  another,  and  yet  retain  the  ichole,  without  divis- 
ion and  without  alienation,  if  it  be  not  a  contradiction  of 
terms,  is,  at  least,  a  use  of  language,  which  I  have  no 
capacity  to  decipher. 

If  there  be  any  intelligible  meaning,  which  Turretine 
12 


82  DEFINITIONS   EXAMINED.  [LeT.  IV. 

designed  to  convey,  I  think  it  must  be,  that  the  Son  is 
eternally  derived  from  the  Father  in  an  inscrutable  man- 
ner, while  he  is  still  of  the  same  numerical  essence  with 
him.  Of  this  general  idea  of  derived  existence  or  subsis- 
tence, in  respect  to  the  Son,  1  shall  say  more,  in  another 
place. 

After  all,  Turretine  limits  the  generation  of  the  Son 
to  the  production  of  his  personality^  and  does  not  extend 
it  to  his  essence^  "for  this,"  says  he,  "  would  prepare 
the  way  for  trithelsm."*  This  view  of  the  subject, 
however,  does  not  relieve  the  difficulties.  Generation 
by  the  Father  he  has  defined  to  be,  the  communication  of 
the  same  numerical  essence  which  he  possesses  to  the  Son,  and  the 
communication  of  the  whole  of  it  without  division.  But  sure- 
ly the  whole  essence  o^  the  Father  does  not  consist  mere- 
ly in  his  personality.  At  any  rate,  Turretine  himself 
has  denied  this ;  as  he  makes  an  important  distinction, 
in  the  place  just  cited,  between  person  and  essence.  How 
then  can  the  generation  of  the  Son  consist  in  the  com- 
munication of  the  whole  essence  of  the  Father  to  him  ; 
and  yet  the  generation  be  limited  to  the  production  of 
mere  personality  ?  "  Generatio,"  says  he,  "  ut  a  persona 
fit  originaliter,  ita  ad  personam  terminatur.'\  It  would 
not  be  decorous  in  me  to  aver,  that  Turretine  has  "dar- 
kened words  by  counsel  without  knowledge."  But  if 
his  words  are  really  light,  or  have  a  meaning  that  is  not 
contradictory,  it  must,  I  think,  be  a  transcendental  one, 
altogether  too  elevated  for  me  to  think  of  aspiring  to 
reach  it. 

Turn  we  now  from  this  excellent  divine,  (who  gen- 
erally shines  with  lustre  not  enfeebled  because  he  now 
and  then  passes  through  an  atmosphere  somewhat  nebu- 

*  Ibid.  §  6.  t  Ibid. 


Let.  IV.]  DEFINITIONS  EXAMINED,  83 

lous,)  to  one  of  the  noblest  representatives  of  the  Evan- 
geh'cal  or  Lutheran  Churches  ;  I  mean  Gerhard,  whose 
Loci  Theologici  are  comprised  in  above  twenty  quarto 
volumes.  In  discussing  the  question  Whether  the  Fa- 
ther begat  the  Son  of  his  own  essence^  he  has  developed 
his  view  of  the  doctrine  before  us,  "  Observe,"  says 
he,  "  that  the  Father  is  said  to  have  begotten  the  Son 
from  his  substance,  not  from  any  alienation  or  division 
of  his  essence  ;  (for  neither  did  he  deprive  himself  of 
his  essence,  nor  give  a  part  of  it  to  the  Son ;)  but  by 
the  communication  of  his  whole  essence^  because  by  gene- 
ration he  communicated  his  whole  and  perfect  essence  to 
the  Son,  and  retained  the  whole  of  it  to  himself  because  it 
is  infinite."* 

This  definition  agrees  entirely,  as  to  substance,  with 
that  of  Turretine  ;  and  therefore  the  same  objections 
may  be  made  to  it.  What  idea  can  be  conveyed  to 
the  human  mind,  by  saying  that  the  Father  "  communi- 
cated his  whole  and  perfect  essence  to  the  Son,  and  retain- 
ed the  whole  of  it  to  himself  I  am  not  competent  to  un- 
derstand. I  will  not  aver,  that  when  the  venerable 
author  in  question  wrote  this,  he  had  no  idea  in  his 
mind  which  he  meant  to  communicate  ;  but  I  am  obliged 
with  pain  to  confess,  that  after  repeated  eiforts  to  elicit 
an  intelligible  idea  from  his  language,  I  have  utterly 
failed  to  effect  it. 

Let  us  now  come  down  to  more  recent  divines,  and 
select  some  of  the  most  acute  and  metaphysical  among 
them,  who  have  been  taught  by  the  reiterated  objec- 
tions of  opponents,  to  be  much  more  cautious  in  their 
definitions  than  the  older  divines. 

"  Generation,"  says  Brettschneider,    "  is   that    rela* 

*  Gerhard,  Tom.  III.  Loc.  IV.  Cap.  V.  §  75. 


84  J')EFIN1T10\S  EXAMINED.  [LeT.  IV. 

tion  of  the  Father  to  the  Son,  by  which  the  Father 
contains  the  reason  of  the  subsistence  (not  the  exist- 
ence) of  the  Son."* 

According  to  this  definition,  the  Son  exists  of  him- 
self; but  does  not  subsist,  except  by  the  Father.  I 
have  difficulties  as  great  in  understanding  this  defini- 
tion, as  that  of  Turretine  or  Gerhard.  Of  subsistence^ 
I  cannot  form  any  definite  idea,  in  reference  to  this 
subject,  except  that  o[  continued  existence.  Are  we  then 
to  understand,  that  the  Son  exists  of  himself  or  is  self- 
existent,  but  continues  to  exist  only  by  and  through  the 
Father  ?  Can  we  form  an  idea  of  a  self-existent  being, 
which  continues  to  exist  in  and  by  another  ? 

But  perhaps  Brettschneider  means,  that  the  Son 
subsists  as  Son,  i.  c.  his  filiation,  or  hypostatical  subsis- 
tence as  Son,  is  only  through  or  by  the  Father.  If  this 
be  his  meaning,  there  is  yet  so  much  obscurity,  that 
I  am  not  able  to  comprehend  it.  For  the  question 
is.  What  is  generation,  as  applied  to  this  subject? 
What  is  it  which  makes  the  Logos  Son?  If  the  an- 
swer be.  It  is  that  he  derives  his  filiation  from  the  Fa- 
ther; the  question  must  still  be  put.  Wherein  does  this 
filiation  consist? — If  the  answer  be.  It  consists  in  deri- 
vation from  the  Father  ;  then  we  may  still  inquire,  In 
what  i^espects  does  derivation  apply  to  the  Logos  ?  And 
to  this  question,  Brettschneider  has  already  answered, 
In  respect  to  subsistence.  This  of  course  involves  the 
difficulties  already  stated. 

Let  us  hear  the  celebrated  Reinhard,  late  court 
preacher  of  the  king  of  Saxony,  and  an  admirable  schol- 
ar as  well  as  very  acute  reasoner  and  theologian.  "•  The 
Father  generates  the  Son,"  says  he,  ''  means  that  he  is 
*  Systemat.  Entwickelung  der  Dogmatik,  §  68. 


Let.  IV.]  DEFINITIONS  EXAMINED.  85 

in  part  the  reason  why  divine  perfections  belong  to  lilm, 
in  this  rather  than  another  manner."* 

But  if  this  be  generation^  may  not  the  Son  with 
equal  propriety  be  said  to  generate  the  Father;  since 
being  co-equal  and  co-eternal,  he  cannot  be  conceived 
of  without  at  the  same  time  admitting  the  apprehen- 
sion, that  the  perfections  of  the  Father,  all  of  which 
have  so  high  a  relation  to  him,  are  modified  by  him  ? 
And  indeed,  according  to  the  definition  just  given,  I  am 
unable  to  perceive  any  analogy  to  the  meaning  of  the 
vv^ord  generation^  in  the  connexion  of  the  Son  with  the 
Father  ;  or  any  [)ropriety  in  using  this  word  In  prefer- 
ence to  a  multitude  of  others  which  might  easily  be  se- 
lected. 

Of  the  attempts  of  the  early  fathers  to  define  what 
they  meant  by  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  I  have 
already  taken  sufficient  notice.  To  the  famous  attempt 
in  the  Nicene  Creed  to  make  a  standard  definition,  it  is 
proper  that  I  should  now  advert. 

"  We  believe,"  say  the  Nicene  Fathers, — "  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father,  that  is,  of  the  substance  {ovijiag)  of  the 
Father,  God  of  God,  light  of  light,  very  God  of  very 
God,  begotten  not  made,  of  the  same  substance  with 
the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  &:c."t 

These  accumulated  expressions  are  not  designed 
to  be  mere  tautologies.  They  are  all  significant  of  sen- 
timents opposed  to  various  parties,  (specially  the  Ari- 
an,)  who  denied  the  divinity,  or  distinct  personality,  or 
generated  nature  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  term  only 
begotten  they  have  attempted  to  explain,  by  adding  that 

*  Do^matik,  S.  151. 

t  Nicene  Creed,  in  Bullii  0pp.  p.  5. 


86  DEFINITIONS  EXAMINED.  [LeT.   IV. 

the  Son  is  produced /rom  the  substance  of  the  Father ; 
and  produced  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  God.  Light  of 
light  only  presents  an  image,  by  which  they  meant  at 
once  to  defend  and  explain  the  assertion,  God  of  God. 
It  is  as  if  they  had  said,  The  light  which  proceeds  from 
the  sun  is  of  the  same  nature  with  the  sun  itself;  and 
the  procession  of  light  is  coeval  with  the  existence  of 
the  sun.  Very  God  of  very  God,  is  meant  only  to  ex- 
press their  belief  in  the  real  divinity  of  the  Son  ;  for 
the  Arians  who  did  not  at  all  scruple  to  call  him  God, 
would  still  deny  that  he  was  really  and  truly  divine. 
Begotten  not  made  was  directly  opposed  to  the  Arians, 
who  maintained  that  the  Son  was,  properly  speaking,  a 
created  beino\ 

In  the  Nicene  Creed,  then,  the  generation  of  the 
Son  is  defined  to  be  a  production  from  the  substance  of 
the  Father — an  eternal  production* — while  the  Son,  in 
all  respects,  except  that  of  derivation,  is  represented  a3 
possessed  of  equality  with  the  Father. 

But  this  creed  does  not  attempt  to  define,  wheth- 
er the  production  was  voluntary  or  of  necessity;  and 
it  cost  Athanasius  great  exertions  to  procure  a  general 
admission  of  the  idea,  tliat  the  generation  of  the  Son 
was  necessary.  It  seemed  to  be  a  common  apprehen- 
sion, that  this  view  of  the  subject  limited  the  capacity 
or  power  of  the  Father. 

It  is  disputed  among  the  best  patristical  critics, 
whether  numerical  unity  of  essence  belongs,  according 
to  the  Nicene  Creed,  to  the  Father   and   the  Son.     Be 

*  At  the  close  of  the  Creed, — "  And  those  who  say,  there  was  a 
time  when  he  [the  Son]  was  not,  and  before  he  was  made  he  was 
not ;  or  that  he  was  made  out  of  nothing",  or  out  of  any  other  hy- 
postasis or  substance,  [than  that  of  the  Father] — the  Catholic 
Church  anathematizes.'"    Ibid. 


Let.  IV.]  DEFINITIONS    EXAMINED.  87 

this  as  it  may,  the  distinguishing  trait  of  filiation  is  re- 
presented by  it,  as  derivation  from  the  substance  of  the 
Father.  I  have  reserved  the  examination  of  this  gene- 
ric idea,  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  nearly  all  the  defini- 
tions that  have  ever  been  given  of  eternal  generation, 
for  the  subject  of  discussion  in  another  letter. 

I  have  referred  back  to  the  famous  Nicene  Creed,  in 
the  present  Letter,  merely  to  show,  that  however  vari- 
ous the  descriptions  of  the  generation  of  the  Son  may 
have  been,  in  some  minute  particulars,  as  given  by  those 
who  hold  that  the  Logos  himself  is  the  Son  of  God,  yet 
there  is  a  central  point,  in  which  they  all  meet ;  viz,  the 
Logos  is  derived  [eternally  derived^  say  most  orthodox  di- 
vines since  the  Council  of  Nice,) /rom  the  Father^  and  de- 
pends on  him,  as  some  s^y,  for  existence  ;  others,  for  sub- 
sistence; the  majority  of  later  divines,  for  personality. 

Without  occupying  myself  any  longer  then,  by  de- 
scending into  the  minutiae  of  differences  in  the  modes  of 
definition  found  in  different  writers,  I  will  pass,  at  once, 
to  the  consideration  of  the  main  point  which  is  common 
to  them,  viz,  that  of  derivation  or  dependence  (in  any  re- 
spect whatever)  as  Logos,  or  a  being  truly  divine.  This  I 
shall  endeavour  to  do,  in  the  succeeding  Letter. 


LETTER  V. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  begin  the  present  Letter,  by  saying  that  I  fully  ac- 
cede to  your  views  respecting  the  unreasonableness  of 
those,  who  demand  that  the  manner  of  every  fact  which 
is  affirmed  should  be  explained,  before  they  feel  them- 
selves obliged  to  believe  the  fact  itself.  I  go  so  far  here 
as  to  say,  that  a  great  part  of  all  the  facts  with  which 
we  are  acquainted,  either  in  the  natural  or  spiritual 
world,  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  the  manner  in  which 
they  become  facts,  or  exist  as  such,  is  utterly  beyond  the 
reach  of  our  investigation.  The  manner  in  which  a  spire 
of  grass  grows,  is  as  really  beyond  the  reach  of  our 
knowledge,  at  present,  as  the  sublime  mysteries  of  the 
Godhead.  The  cry  o[  mystery,  mystery,  which  is  so  oft- 
en raised  against  certain  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  can 
never  influence  the  real  lover  of  truth  to  reject  them. 
The  fact  that  the  doctrines  are  true  is  the  only  thing 
which  claims  his  serious  attention;  the  mamier  in  which 
these  truths  come  to  exist,  or  continue  to  do  so,  is  not 
what  a  rational  philosopher  expects  to  understand,  in  his 
present  imperfect  state. 

But  what  is  unintelligible  or  surpasses  our  compre- 
hension, belongs  to  things  and  not  to  words.  What  we 
express  respecting  things,  must  of  course  be  intehigible  ; 
for  language  is  merely  the  vehicle  by  which  our  thoughts 
are  conveyed  to  others.  What  we  understand  in  our 
own  minds,  we  can  express  to  the  minds  of  others;  and 
what  we  do  not  understand,  of  course  we  cannot  ex- 


Let.  v.]  eternal  generation  examined.  89 

press,  because  our  language,  which  is  only  the  vehicle 
by  which  our  thoughts  are  conveyed,  cannot  convey 
thoughts  or  conceptions  which  do  not  exist. 

It  is  very  easy  then  to  draw  the  line  of  distinction,  be- 
tween mystery  which  is  connected  with  things  or  phe- 
nomena, and  mystery  which  belongs  only  to  lamruage. 
The  latter,  I  take  it,  always  proceeds  either  from  want 
of  skill,  or  crafty  design,  or  an  intention  to  S[)eak  enigmas. 

We  are  not  allowed,  therefore,  by  the  common  laws 
of  language,  to  assert  any  thing  which,  when  examined, 
proves  to  be  either  a  contradiction,  or  an  incongruity; 
and  then  to  take  refuge  from  objections  Avhich  may  be 
made  to  our  language,  under  the  pretence  that  the  sub- 
ject is  mysterious,  and  consequently  it  is  improper  to 
urge  investigation  respecting  it.  It  may  be  true,  indeed, 
that  the  subject  of  which  we  speak  is  mysterious.  But 
what  I  have  expressed  about  such  a  subject,  if  I  have 
used  language  with  any  propriety,  is,  of  course,  only  what 
I  knew  or  conceived  about  it  in  my  own  mind.  This  can 
certainly  be  made  intelligible  to  another  mind  ;  and  there 
is,  therefore,  no  mystery  in  my  expression  ^  at  least  there 
oujrht  to  be  none. 

The  propriety  of  these  distinctions  will  not,  I  appre- 
hend, be  called  in  question.  Let  me  make  the  applica- 
tion to  the  subject  before  us. 

If  it  be  true,  that  the  Logos  is  Son  of  God,  {cle  facto 
not  simply  de  nomine,)  the  manner  of  his  generation  may 
be,  and  no  doubt  is,  inscrutable  by  us.  1  ask  for  no  ex- 
planation of  this.  \{  the  fact  can  be  proved,  those  who 
believe  it  are  not  at  all  obliged  to  explain  tiie  manner  in 
which  it  takes  place.  But  if,  in  defining  the  eternal  gen- 
eration o{  iho,  Son,  divines  have  made  statementb,  which 
are  inconsistent  with  the  perfections  of  God,  or  incon- 
13 


90  GENERIC  IDEA  OF  [LeT.    V. 

gruous,  or  injurious  in  their  legitimate  consequences  t6 
the  proper  divinity  of  the  Logos  ;  then  they  cannot  re- 
treat from  examination,  and  find  shelter  for  such  state- 
ments under  the  allegation,  that  the  subject  is  mysteri- 
ous. This  may  be  very  true ;  but  what  they  have  stat- 
ed concerning  it  is,  or  at  least  may  be,  no  more  mysteri- 
ous to  my  mind  than  it  was  to  theirs ;  and  consequently 
I  may  understand  it.  If  they  have  stated  something 
which  they  did  not,  and  do  not,  and  cannot  know,  a  seri- 
ous and  rational  man  surely  will  not  undertake  to  de- 
fend such  a  statement. 

Is  the  eternal  (reneration  of  the  Son  of  God  asserted  in 
the  Scriptures  ?  No  direct  assertion  of  this  kind  can  be 
found.  Those  who  believe  the  doctrine,  deduce  it  con- 
sequentially from  certain  passages  of  the  Bible.  Is  this 
phraseology  or  doctrine  any  where  defined,  in  the  word  of 
God?  No  one  will  venture,  at  the  present  day,  to  as- 
sert this.  We  are  cast,  then,  for  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  in  question,  upon  the  definitions  of  divines,  who 
have  laboured  to  prove  the  doctrine.  Those  definitions 
have  been  produced  ;  and  as  they  are  not  of  inspired  au- 
thority, it  is  doubtless  lawful  fully  to  examine  them. 

As  I  have  already  intimated,  they  all  concur  in  the 
general  idea  of  derivation  and  dependence,  in  some  re- 
spect or  other,  of  the  Logos  upon  the  Father.  Is  such 
an  idea  consistent  with  the  truly  divine  nature  of  the 
Logos?  Is  it  consistent  with  the  fundamental  predicates 
of  the  divine  Being? 

Bishop  Bull,  at  the  close  of  his  work  on  the  testimo- 
nies of  the  Antenicene  fathers,  has  undertaken  to  show, 
that  all  who  lived  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  as  well  as 
the  members  of  that  Council,  and  all  the  fathers  who 
succeeded  them,  utterly  disclaimed  (prorsus  repugnare) 


Let.  v.]  eternal  generation  examined.  91 

the  idea  that  the  Son  of  God  is  avrod^eos  or  self  exist- 
ent. A  second  thesis  advanced  bj  him  is,  that  "  the  an- 
cient Fathers,  with  one  voice,  taught  that  God  the  Fa- 
ther is  greater  than  the  Son,  inasmuch  as  [or  because 
that]  he  is  the  origin  and  primary  cause  (principium)  of 
him ;  but  that  still  the  Son,  by  nature  (^xaia  (pvaiv,)  is 
equal  to  the  Father."* 

The  matter  of  fact,  or  in  other  words,  that  the  class 
of  fathers  of  whom  he  asserts  this,  did  in  realitv  believe 
and  teach  thus,  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  call  in  question. 
But  whether  the  doctrine  itself  comports  with  the  fun- 
damental predicates  of  the  Divinity,  may  be  examined 
from  the  nature  of  the  divine  attributes,  and  from  the 
Scriptures.  With  an  examination  of  this  doctrine,  in  re- 
spect to  the  nature  of  the  divine  attributes,  the  remain- 
der of  the  present  Letter  is  designed  to  be  occupied. 

That  God  is  a  being  self-existent^  immutable^  and  indepen- 
dent^ is  a  truth  conceded  by  all,  who  have  any  proper 
knowledge  of  the  Deity,  as  revealed  in  his  works  and  in 
his  word.  Nor  is  it  the  case  that  mere  simple  assent  is 
given  to  these  truths.  They  constitute  the  basis,  the 
fundamental  part  of  our  notion  of  the  Supreme  Being. 
Self  existence  or  uncaused  existence  is  necessary  to  in- 
dependence and  immutability  ;  nor  is  it  possible  for  my 
mind  to  conceive  of  a  being,  who  is  in  any  sense  depend- 
ent for  any  of  his  essential  attributes  or  predicates  on 
another,  who  is  at  the  same  time  independent  and  im- 
mutable. 

If  then  the  Logos  be  dependent  for  existence,  sub- 
sistence, or  personality,  on  another,  in  that  respect  where- 
in he  is  dependent,  he  is  not  independent ;  nor,  so  far  as 
his  own  power  is  concerned,  can  he  be  immutable  ;  nor 
can  he  be  self  existent, 

*  BuUii  0pp.  p.  258. 


92  GENERIC   IDEA  OF  [LeT.  V. 

Will  any  of  the  advocates  of  eternal  generation  saj, 
that  dependence  for  existence,  or  subsistence,  or  person- 
ality, is  not  dependence  in  respect  to  an  essential  predicate 
of  the  Logos?  I  think  not.  And  if  not,  is  not  the  Son, 
according  to  their  mode  of  representation,  wanting  in  an 
essential  predicate  of  true  and  proper  Divinity,  viz, 
^vanting  in  independence  and  self-existence  as  to  an  es- 
sential predicate  or  attribute? 

For  my  own  part,  after  the  most  anxious  and  painful 
scrutiny  of  this  subject,  I  feel  compelled  to  say,  that 
self-existence,  or  uncaused  existence,  as  to  all  essential 
predicates  of  Divinity,  is  fundamental,  in  my  view  of  the 
Godhead.  I  can  concleve  it  possible,  that  a  derived  be- 
ing may  have  such  an  unlimited  communication  of  pow- 
er, and  knowledge,  and  wisdom,  that  he  may  govern 
worlds  ;  I  say  it  may  be  possible,  though  I  do  not  believe 
it  actually  to  be  the  case.  Such  a  being  too  may  be 
perfectly  just,  and  holy,  and  benevolent,  and  merciful. 
But  a  distinguishing  mark,  which  of  necessity  would  for- 
ever separate  such  being  or  beings  from  the  Great  Su- 
preme, Is  found  In  uncaused  existence,  God  has  and  can 
have  no  equal,  no  competitor,  no  representative,  in  this  re- 
spect. He  remains,  and  must  eternally  remain  distin- 
guished here,  infinitely  distinguished  in  the  view  of  all 
rational  beings,  from  every  derived  intelligence. 

Any  theory,  then,  respecting  the  person  of  the  Sen  of 
God,  which  make  the  Logos  a  derived  being,  destroys  the 
radical  principle — an  elementary  ingredient,  of  his  true 
and  proper  Divinity.  I  believe  that  the  Logos  is  really 
and  verily  divine — self-existent,  uncaused,  independent, 
immutable  in  himself.  Derivation  in  any  shape,  or  in 
any  measure  ;  as  to  all  or  part  of  his  essential  predicates 
as  God — whether  you  apply  to  it  the  name  generation, 


Let.  v.]  eternal  generation  examined.  93 

emanaiion,  creation,  procession,  or  anj  other  term  which 

has  been  used derivation,  I  say,   appears   essentially 

incompatible  with  proper  divinity.  And  so  plain  does 
this  appear  to  my  mind,  that  if  1  once  admit  the  proper 
derivation  of  the  Logos,  (be  the  derivation  eternal,  or  in 
time,)  the  idea  o( supreme  Divinity  vanishes  in  a  moment  ; 
and  the  Logos  ranks  with  those  who  are  called  God,  only 
from  some  resemblance  either  of  station,  or  office,  or  of 
moral  or  intellectual  qualities,  to  the  self-existent  Deity. 

I  have  undertaken  only  to  state  my  own  views,  and 
the  reasons  of  them.  If  any  of  my  brethren  can  relin- 
quish the  self-existence  of  the  Logos,  and  yet  hold  the 
true  and  proper  divinity  of  Christ,  and  worship  him  as 
very  Gcd,  I  can  only  say,  that  with  all  my  heart  I  can 
give  them  the  hand  of  a  brother,  as  disciples  of  the 
same  Saviour.  But  my  mind  utterly  refuses,  on  this 
point,  to  speculate  with  them.  God  the  maker  of  all 
things,  has  no  cause  of  existence,  i.  e.  no  dependence 
for  it,  30  far  as  I  am  able  to  learn  any  thing  of  his  true 
nature. 

If  the  question,  whether  this  be  a  correct  view  of 
the  nature  of  the  Logos,  is  to  be  decided  by  patristical 
or  ecclesiastical  authority,  or  by  the  voice  of  the  major- 
ity in  times  past,  I  frankly  acknowledge  that  you  will 
have  an  advantage  over  me.  But  you  and  I  have  re- 
nounced such  authority,  if  it  decides  against  reason  and 
Scripture.  I  have  made  the  appeal  to  reason,  as  con- 
cerned with  deducing  consistent  conclusions  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  divine  attributes,  i  come  now  to  the  ulti- 
mate arbiter  of  all  religious  questions — to  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves. 


LETTER  VI. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

It  is  very  possible  that  you  may  think  I  have  express- 
ed myself  too  confidently,  in  the  preceding  letter,  res- 
pecting the  validity  of  the  argument  derived  from  the 
essential  predicates  of  God,  against  the  derivation  of 
the  Logos  ;  and  that  you  will  say,  I  ought  not  to  have 
attributed  so  much  efficacy  to  an  argument,  that  is  not 
directly  drawn  from  the  express  decisions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. I  should  feel  the  force  of  such  an  allegation,  if 
the  argument  had  been  made  out,  without  having  first 
examined  the  Scriptures,  to  see  if  there  were  any  thing 
there  which  would  militate  against  it.  This  I  did;  and 
first  satisfied  my  mind^  that  the  sacred  writers  have  not 
taught  the  generation  or  derivation  of  the  Logos.  In 
consequence  of  this,  I  felt  more  at  liberty  to  argue  in 
the  manner  I  have  done.  A  reader  of  my  Letters 
might  possibly  thiiik,  that  I  first  decided  against  the 
possibility  of  eternal  generation,  by  reasoning  indepen- 
dently of  the  Scriptures;  and  then  brought  this  decis- 
ion along  with  me,  to  the  investigation  of  the  Bible. 
This,  liowever,  I  have  not  in  fact  done  ;  nor,  believing 
as  I  do  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  can  I  think 
it  proper  or  lawful  for  me  to  do  this.  I  would  sooner 
distrust  my  own  reasoning  or  deductions  from  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  divine  attributes,  than  distrust  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Scriptures  on  any  point  whatever,  and 
specially  on  the  awful  mysteries  of  the  Godhead. 


Let.  VI.]  USE  of  the  word  son.  95 

I  come  now  to  develope  the  process  of  investigation, 
which  has  led  me  to  a  real  belief,  that  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  generation  is  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  present  Letter  will  be  occupied  with  an  investi- 
gation of  the  usns  loquendi,  in  the  Hebrew  and  its  kin- 
dred languages,  and  also  the  Hebrew-Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  with  respect  to  the  word  Son. 

It  is  sufficiently  plain,  that  the  great  body  of  those, 
who  have  admitted  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation, 
have  been  more  or  less  moved  to  do  it,  on  account  of 
the  appellation  Son  of  God,  which  is  in  a  special  sense 
given  to  Christ  by  the  sacred  writers. 

Our  first  inquiry,  then,  is  into  the  nature  of  Oriental 
or  Shemitish  usage,  in  regard  to  the  term  Son.  When 
we  have  obtained  general  views  of  this  usage,  we  may 
descend  to  particular  investigations  with  much  more  ad- 
vantage. 

1.  It  is  too  obvious  to  need  any  proof,  that  the  term 
Son,  throughout  the  Scriptures  Old  and  New,  is  employ- 
ed, so  often  as  is  needed,  in  its  primary  and  literal  sense, 
viz,  as  designating  the  lineal  descendent  by  corporeal 
generation  of  human  parents.  It  designates,  in  this 
sense,  not  only  the  immediate  descendent,  as  David  the 
Son  of  Jesse  ;  but  any  descendent  however  remote.  E.g. 
the  sons  of  Israel  may  mean  the  Jews  at  any  period; 
and  the  sons  of  Adam  the  world  of  mankind,  at  any 
stage  of  their  existence. 

All  other  uses  of  the  term  Son,  except  the  one  just 
named,  are  of  course  figurative.  And  even  the  use  of 
it  to  designate  any  but  the  immediate  male  progeny  of 
human  parents,  is  in  a  certain  sense  a  figurative  or  sec- 
ondary use  of  it. 

The  word  Son  was  a  favorite  one  among  the  Hebrews ; 


96  USE  OF   THE  WORD    SON  [LeT,  VI. 

and  was  employed  by  them,  to  designate  a  great  variety 
of  relations.  The  son  of  cmy  thi'no\  accordins;  to  oriental 
idiom,  may  be  either  what  is  closely  connected  icith  it,  de- 
pendent on  it,  like  it,  the  consequence  of  it,  icorthy  of  if, 
kc.  But  this  view  of  the  subject  must  be  explained,  by 
actual  examples  from  the  Scriptures.  The  followmg  I 
have  selected  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

TJie  son  of  eight  days,  i.  e.  the  child  that  is  eio^ht  days 
old  :  the  son  of  one  hundred  years,  i.  e.  the  person  who  is 
one  hundred  years  of  age  ;  the.^o//  of  a  year.  i.  e.  a  year- 
hno;  :  the  son  of  my  sorrow,  i.  e.  one  who  has  caused  me 
distress  ;  the  son  of  my  right  hand,  i.  e.  one  who  will  as- 
sist or  be  a  help  to  me ;  son  of  old  age,  i.  e.  begotten  in 
old  age  :  son  of  valour,  i.  e.  bold,  brave  ;  son  of  Belial, 
[lit.  son  of  good-lbr-nothmg.]  i.  e.  a  worthless  man;  son 
of  wickedness,  i.  e.  wicked  ;  son  of  a  murderer,  i.  e,  a  mur- 
derous person ;  son  of  my  vows,  i.  e.  son  that  answers  to 
my  vows  ;  son  of  death,  i.  e.  one  who  deserves  death  ; 
son  of  perdition,  i.  e.  one  who  deserves  perdition :  son  of 
smitincr^  i.  e.  one  who  deserves  stripes  ;  son  of  Gehenna, 
i.  e.  one  who  deserves  Gehenna  ;  son  f  consolation,  i.e.  one 
fitted  to  administer  consolation;  son  of  thunder,  i.  e.  a  man 
of  powerful,  energetic  eloquence  or  strength :  son  f  peace, 
i.  e.  a  peaceable  man ;  son  of  the  morning,  i.  e.  moi^ning 
star;  sons  of  the  burning  coal,  i.  e.  sparks  of  fire  ;  son  f  the 
bow,  i.  e.  an  arrow;  son  of  the  threshing  floor,  i.  e.  grain; 
son  of  oil,  i.  e.  fat  ;  son  f  the  house,  i.  e.  doniostic  or 
slave  ;  son  of  man,  i.  e.  man,  as  it  is  usually  applied ;  but 
perhaps  in  a  sense  somewhat  diverse,  in  several  respects, 
as  applied  to  the  Saviour. 

Such  is  the  wide  extent  of  relation,  similarity,  connec- 
tion, (^c.  which  the  term  son  is  emploved  to  designate  in 
the  Hebrew,  and  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;    a  latitude  far  greater  than  is  given    to  it  in  the 


Let.  VI. J  IN  THE  oriental  languages.  97 

Occidental  languages;  and  which  no  one,  who  is  not  con- 
versant with  the  Hebrew,  can  scarcely  estimate  in  an  ad- 
equate manner. 

In  collecting  and  translatincr  these  idioms,  I  have,  of 
course,  followed  the  phraseology  of  the  original  languages 
to  which  they  belong,  and  not  our  Entrlish  \'ersion ;  which 
not  unfrequently  paraphrases  them,  in  order  to  render 
them  intelligible  to  the  English  reader. 

Nor  are  the  Hebrew  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  and 
Hebrew-Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  the  only  languag- 
es which  exhibit  this  latitude  of  construction  in  re-j,ect  to 
the  word  son.  The  same  idiom  runs  through  all  the 
Shemitish  languages.  In  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Scrip 
ture?,  made,  as  is  most  probat3le,  not  long  after  the  death 
of  the  Apostles,  and  in  a  languaore  which  approximates 
nearest  of  all  to  the  vernacular  dialect  of  the  Jews  in  our 
Saviour's  time,  the  word  in  question  is  used  in  a  still  great- 
er latitude.  The  following:  instances  are  collected  fi'om 
this  Version. 

Jl  son  of  trade,  i.  e.  ouojeyroPj  or  one  of  the  same  trade, 
fellow  workman  :  son  c>f  a  great  fcnnUn.  i.  e.  a  nobleman  ; 
son  of  ray  yoke,  i.  e.  my  companion:  son  cf  fosterfa'Jurs, 
i.  e.  GvvT^ocfog,  an  associate  in  education  or  pupilage  ;  son 
of  flesh,  i.  e.  a  relative  ;  son  cf  adultery^  i.  e.  a  person  of 
illegitimate  birth;  son  of  his  day.  i.  e,  a  coteraporary  ;  son 
of  his  hour,  i.  e.  forthwith,  immediately:  son  of  the  neel\ 
i.  e.  a  collet  :  sons  of  inheritance,  i.  e.  heirs  ;  so7is  of 
the  place,  i.  e.  dwelling  together:  sons  of  the  city.  i.  e. 
fellow  citizens  :  sons  of  the  tribe,  i.  e.  members  of  the 
same  tribe  ;  sons  of  the  people^  i.  e.  Gentiles  ;  sons  of  the 
company,  i.  e.  fellow  travellers  ;  sons  of  my  years,  i.  e. 
mv  equals  in  age  :  sons  of  the  nobles,  i.  e.  free-men :  sons 
of  Crete,  i.e.  Cretans;    sons   of  idols,  i.e.  idolaters. 

To  these  idioms,  taken  from  the  Svriac  Version  of  the 
14 


98  USE  OF  THE  WORD  SON  [LeT.  VI. 

Scriptures,  may  be  added  others  belonging  to  the  language ; 
e.  g.  the  son  of  secrecy^  i.  e.  privy  counsellor  ;  son  of  the 
oaks,  \.  e.  of  noble  progeny;  the  son  of  similitude^  i.e. 
most  like  ;  son  of  heresy,  i.  e.  a  heretic  ;  son  of  nature, 
i.  e.  of  the  same  nature ;  a  son  of  two  portions,  i.  e.  one 
who  receives  a  double  portion  of  inheritance  ;  son  of  the 
leopards,  i.  e.  Bacchus;  son  of  dividing,  i.  e.  one  who  di- 
vides the  inheritance  with  another  ;  son  of  the  month, 
i.  e.  of  the  same  month  ;  son  of  the  year,  i.  e.  a  cotempo- 
rary  ;  son  of  opinion,  i.  e.  one  holding  the  same  senti- 
ments- 

Besides  these,  most  of  the  instances  already  adduced 
above  from  the  Hebrew  idiom,  are  found  in  the  Syriac; 
together  with  other  cases  of  a  similar  kind,  which  I  for- 
bear to  cite. 

In  the  Arabic  language,  the  idiom  in  question  is  still 
more  striking ;  because  we  have  the  language  in  much 
fuller  extent  than  either  the  Syriac  or  the  Hebrew. 
Here  we  find,  besides  many  of  the  idioms  already  quot- 
ed, sons  of  the  land,  i.  e.  strangers  ;  son  of  familiarity,  i.  e. 
intimate  friend;  son  of  moonshine,  i.  e.  a  night  resplen- 
dent with  moon-beams;  son  of  the  night,  i,  e.  a  dark 
night;  son  of  misfortune,  i.  e.  in  trouble;  son  of  the  days, 
i.  e.  unfortunate  ;  son  of  destroying,  i.  e.  warlike  ;  son  of 
freedom,  i.  e.  innocent ;  son  of  the  way,  i.  e.  a  traveller ; 
son  of  the  sun,  i.  e.  Aurora,  or  morning  light;  son  of  the 
clouds,  i.  e.  rain,  also,  coolness  ;  son  of  time,  i.  e.  a  day  and 
a  night ;  son  of  the  night,  i.  e.  the  moon  ;  son  of  the  day, 
i.  e.  a  day. 

These  are  only  a  part  of  the  instances  which  occur, 
of  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  word  son  in  Arabic.  More 
might  easily  be  added  ;  but  I  deem  it  unnecessary. 

The  object  of  all  the  specimens  which  I   have  exhib- 


Let.  VI.]  IN  THE  ORIENTAL  LANGUAGES.  99 

itcd  of  the  use  of  the  term  son,  in  the  Shemitlsh  lan- 
guages, is  to  make  it  evident  how  very  vague,  indefinite, 
and  extensive,  the  secondary  significations  of  this  word 
arc  ;  and  how  different  the  p'cifius  of  the  oriental  Ian- 
guages,  which  thus  employ  it,  is,  from  that  of  our  own 
language,  or  from  those  of  Europe  in  general. 

Every  kind  of  relation  or  resemblance  whether  real 
or  imaginary,  every  kind  of  connexion,  is  characterised 
by  calling  it  the  son  of  that  thing  to  which  it  stands 
thus  related,  or  with  which  it  is  connected. 

Very  diiferent  is  the  genius  of  the  western  languages. 
We  have,  indeed,  borrowed  from  the  Scriptures  many 
expressions,  where  son  is  employed  in  a  manner  agreea- 
ble to  their  idiom  ;  and  from  poetry — from  Homer  (him- 
self probably  an  Asiatic,)  we  have  borrowed  many  more 
which  resemble  them.  But  our  own  language,  in  itself 
and  apart  from  these  sources  of  expression,  is  barren  in 
respect  to  the  idiom  in  question.  And  such  is  the  gen- 
eral fact,  in  regard  to  all  the  occidental  languages,  an- 
cient and  modern. 

It  is  obvious,  now,  that  there  would  naturally  be  a 
great  tendency  in  occidental  readers,  to  understand  the 
word  son  in  a  literal  sense,  or  in  a  sense  as  near  as  pos- 
sible to  a  literal  one,  wherever  they  found  it  employed. 
I  have  little  doubt  that  the  emphasis  placed  by  many 
divines,  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  on  the  phrase  son 
of  God,  as  a  proof  of  the  generation  or  derivation  of  the 
Logos,  has  been  owing,  in  part,  to  this  difference  of  idi- 
om between  the  East  and  West.  It  has  operated  insen- 
sibly^ but  not  with  the  less  certainty  or  effect,  on  that 
account. 

It  will  be   remembered,  however,  that   vt^hen   we  in- 
vestigate the  meaning  of  the  phrase  Son  of  God^  in  the 


100  SIGNIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TERMS  [LeT.    VII. 

Scriptures,  we  are  investigating  the  usus  loquendt  of  a 
Shemitish  dialect.  This  will  of  course  be  conceded,  in 
regard  to  the  phrase  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  and  I  may 
add,  that  all  critics  are  now  agreed,  that  although  the 
words  of  the  New  Testament  are  Greek,  the  idiom  is 
Hebrew. 


LETTER  VII. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Almost  any  one  who  is  conversant  with  the  study  of 
languages,  would  expect,  from  the  usus  loqxtendi  of  the 
Hebrew  as  already  exhibited  in  respect  to  the  word 
son^  that  the  phrase  son  or  sons  of  God,  would  be  em- 
ployed with  considerable  variety  and  latitude  of  mean- 
ing. It  is  the  object  of  the  present  letter,  to  investi- 
gate the  various  senses  in  which  this  phrase  is  employ- 
ed by  the  sacred  writers. 

To  begin  with  the  Old  Testament.  I  find  the  phrase 
son  of  God,  in  the  singular  number,  and  in  this  form,  on- 
ly once  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  and  this  instance  is 
in  Daniel  3:  25.  Nebuchadnezzar  sees  four  men  loose, 
in  the  fiery  furnace,  and  the  form  of  the  fourth,  he  says, 
is  like  a  son  of  God  or  the  gods,  i.  e.  like  a  supernatural 
being,  angel  or  spirit,  viz,  resplendent,  majestic.  The 
rendering  of  our  Version,  the  Son  of  God,  obscures  the 
sense,  and,  as  I  must  think,  misleads  the  common  rea- 
der. It  conveys  a  meaning  entirely  destitute  of  probabil- 
ity ;  for   the  words  were  uttered  by  an  idolatrous  hea- 


Let.  \  II.]  SON   AND  SONS  OF  GOD.  101 

then  prince,  who   does  not   seem  to    have  had,  at   least 
as  yet,  any  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God. 

In  the  plural  number,  used  as  a  generic  noun  to  de- 
signate the  pious,  sons  of  God  is  probably  employed  in 
Gen.  6:  2  and  4 ;  The  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters  of 
mcn^  (fcc.  To  apply  the  phrase  here,  as  most  of  the 
ancient  fathers  did,  to  the  angels,  seems  sufficiently  ab- 
surd;  and  to  apply  it,  as  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  and 
many  translators  and  commentators  after  it  have  done, 
to  the  sons  of  princes  or  noblemen  (i^^!3"l!}1  '^DS), seems 
to  be  very  unsatisfactory  ;  for  why  should  the  mixture 
of  noolemen  and  common  people  occasion  all  that  ex- 
cess of  wickedness,  which  followed  the  intercourse  spok- 
en of  in  the  text  ?  I  must  believe  that  here,  then,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  Scriptures,  sons  of  God  is  used  to 
describe  those,  who  professed  to  be  pious  or  the  chil- 
dren of  God. 

In  Job  1:  6,  and  2:  1,  sons  of  God  seems  to  mean 
angels  ;  for  the  congruity  of  the  representation  is  de- 
stroyed, unless  we  suppose,  that  those  with  whom  Sa- 
tan came  to  present  himself,  were  of  the  same  order  of 
beings  with  him. 

In  Job  38  :  7,  When  all  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy,  is 
probably  descriptive  of  the  angels;  so  that  the  iism  lo- 
quendi  of  this  book  is  uniform,  in  respect  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase. 

Hosea  1:  10,  "  In  the  place  where  it  was  said  unto 
them,  [the  children  of  Isra(;ll  ye  are  not  my  people, 
there  it  shall  be  said  unto  them,  Ye  are  the  sons  of  the 
living  God.''''  This  is  a  clear  case,  again,  of  the  use  of 
the  phrase  to  designate  the  pious. 

In  a  similar  way,  God  confers  on  the  whole  nation  of 
Israel,  who   were    his  chosen  people,  and  professed  to 


102  SlGXiFICATIOKb  OF  THE  TER3IS  [LeT.  VII. 

love  and  serve  him,  the  title  Son.  Hosea  11:  1,  When 
Israel  was  a  child  I  loved  him  ;  and  called  my  son  nut  of 
Egypt,  Exod.  4 :  22,  and  23,  Thus  salth  the  Lord, 
Israel  is  my  son,  even  my  first  horn.  St.  Paul,  proba- 
bly in  allusion  to  this  passage,  speaks  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Israelitish  nation,  as  one  of  their  privileges,  in 
Rom.  9:4.  In  Deut.  4  :  1,  it  is  said  of  Israel,  Ye  are 
the  children  of  Jehovah. 

In  Ps.  82  :  6,  princes  or  magistrates  are  called  y\rV>^  ""D^^ 
sons  of  the  most  high,  vlol  viiuotov.  The  same  designa- 
tion, in  the  singular  number,  is  applied  by  the  angel  Ga- 
briel to  the  Saviour,  who  was  to  be  born  of  the  virgin 
Mary  ;  Luke  1 :  32. 

In  the  New  Testament,  the  phrase  sons  of  God  is  so 
often  applied  to  Ciiristians,  or  pious  persons,  that  it 
■would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  repeat  all  the  instances  in 
which  this  phraseology  occurs.  Peacemakers  are  called 
the  sons  of  God,  and  the  sons  of  the  most  high ;  those 
who  bless  their  persecutors  are  sons  of  their  heavenly 
Father;  the  i?:ood  seed  are  the  sons  of  the  Kingdom; 
saints  at  the  resurrection  are  the  sons  of  God,  and 
the  sons  of  ihe  resurrection ;  as  raanj  as  are  led  by  the 
spirit  of  God  are  the  sons  of  God  ;  those  who  are  born 
in  a  spiritual  manner  have  the  privilege  of  being  the 
sons  of  God  ;  God  will  be  a  Father  to  Christians,  and 
they  shall  be  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  Lord  Al- 
mighty; those  who  have  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  are  the 
sons  of  God ;  Christians  are  exhorted  to  be  harmless, 
that  they  may  be  the  sons  of  God  without  rebuke  ;  the 
Fathers  great  love  has  made  Christians  the  sons  of 
God  ;  they  are  now  the  sons  of  God,  but  will  be  ad- 
vanced in  holiness  and  ha[)piness  hereafter. 

It  should  be  remembered  here,  (what  however  I  have 


Let.  VII.]  SON  and  sons  or  god.  103 

not  found  remarked  in  any  of  the  Lexicons  or  Commen- 
taries which  I  have  consulted,)  that  the  phrase  is  never 
used  in  the  singular  number  and  applied  in  this  way  to 
designate  an  individual  saint.  When  God  calls  Israel 
his  Son  and  his  first  born,  (in  Ex.  4:  22,  23,  and  Hosea 
11  :  1,)  the  singular  number  is  plainly  generic,  or  a  noun 
of  multitude  ;  just  as  the  name  Israel  or  Judah  common- 
ly is.  It  is  rather  remarkable,  that  in  both  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  this  usage  should  reign  without  excep- 
tion. At  least,  after  diligent  investigation,  I  have  not  been 
able  to  find  an  exception,  when  it  is  applied  simply  to 
designate  the  character  of  a  saint,  or  a  professed  disciple  of 
Judaism  or  Christianity.  Man  of  God  we  find  applied 
to  designate  a  prophet,  and  perhaps  a  pious  man  simply  ; 
but  child  of  God^  or  son  of  God,  in  the  singular  number, 
and  with  a  singular  sense,  is  applied  by  the  sacred  wri- 
ters themselves,  only  to  Christ;  with  the  exception  of  a 
single  instance,  which  I  shall  soon  notice.  A'id  this  ap- 
pellation we  find  given  to  him_,  both  in  prophecy  and  in 
history. 

The  exception  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  is  found 
in  Luke  3  :  38;  which  contains  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
traced  back  to  Adam,  who  is  called  the  son  of  God.  The 
obvious  reason  of  the  appellation  here,  is  the  immediate 
derivation  of  Adam  from  the  creative  power  of  his 
Maker. 

In  a  sense  kindred  to  this,  all  men  are  sometimes  re- 
presented as  standing  in  the  relation  of  ciiildren  to  God, 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

In  respect  to  the  pious,  God  is  styled  their  father  on  a 
double  account;  viz,  as  the  author  of  their  being,  or  as 
Paul  calls  bin]  in  Heb.  12:9,  the  Father  of  spirits  ;  and 
because  they  stand  in  a  spiritual  relation  to  him.  in  which 


104  SIGNIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TERMS  [LeT.  VII, 

thej  are  named  and  treated  as  children.  Thus  our  Sa- 
viour has  taught  Christians,  when  praying,  to  say,  Our 
Father,  But  instances  of  this  usage  are  so  common,  and 
so  universally  acknowledged,  that  detailed  proof  is  un- 
necessary. 

In  cases,  however,  where  the  rebellious  Israelites  and 
the  lieathen  are  spoken  of,  God  is  styled  their  father^ 
because  that  he  is  the  author  of  their  being.  Thus  Moses, 
predicting  the  future  corruption  and  perverseness  of  Isra- 
el breaks  out  into  remonstrance  with  them  ;  "  Do  ye  thus 
requite  the  Lord?  O  foolish  people  and  unwise!  Is  he 
not  tlvj father^  that  redeemed  thee  [from  Egypt?]  Hath 
he  not  made  thee  V  Deut.  32 :  6.  So  the  prophet,  plead- 
ing with  God  for  apostate  Israel,  says  ;  "  But  now,  O 
Lord,  thou  art  o?/r  FoV/icr;  we  are  the  clay,  and  thou 
our  Potter  ;  and  we  are  all  the  work  of  thine  hand." 
Isaiah  64  :  8.  So  Malachi  expostulates  with  the  wicked 
priests  of  his  time,  in  behalf  of  God;  '*If  I  be  a  father, 
where  is  mine  honour  ?"  And  in  the  same  manner,  re- 
bellious and  apostate  men,  under  the  image  of  the  prodi- 
gal son,  are  represented  as  wandering  from  their  Father^s 
house ;  and  when  penitent,  they  are  permitted  to  come 
and  say,  ^'Father,  we  have  sinned." 

The  apostle  represents  God  as  sustaining  the  same  re- 
lation to  the  Gentiles,  as  their  maker  and  preserver, 
which  he  sustained  toward  the  Jews.  '•  Is  he  the  God  of 
the  Jews  only  ?  Is  he  not  of  the  Gentiles  also  ?  Yes,  of 
the  Gentiles  also."  Rom.  3  :  29.  And  as  he  has  made 
of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to  dwell  on  all  the 
face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined — the  bounds  of 
their  habitations;  so  all  ''live  and  move  and  have 
their  being"  in  him,  "and — are  also  hi-?  offspring." 
Acts  17  :  26.  2a. 


Let.  VII.]  SON  and  sons  of  god.  105 

In  other  senses  than  those  now  exhibited,  I  find  not 
the  term  son  of  God  applied  in  the  Scriptures  ;  with  the 
exception  of  its  meaning  when  applied  to  the  Saviour, 
and  which  will  be  the  subject  of  inquiry  in  the  succeed- 
ing Letter. 

Let  us  now  take  a  summary  view  of  the  various  mean- 
ings of  the  phrase  in  question. 

(L)  Sons  of  God  means  the  pious,  or  those  who  profess 
to  love  and  obey  God.  (2.)  It  means  angels,  or  superna- 
tural spiritual  beings.  (3)  It  means  kings,  and  perhaps 
their  vicegerents  i.  e.  magistrates.  (4.)  It  designates  the 
relation  in  which  all  men  stand  to  God,  as  the  author  of 
their  being. 

The  reason  of  the  appellation  in  this  last  case  is  so 
obvious,  and  the  analogy  which  leads  to  it  so  plain  and 
striking,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  more  than  has  been 
already  said,  to  illustrate  the  ground  of  it.  But  it  may 
not  be  useless  to  add  a  few  remarks,  which  may  serve 
to  explain  the  grounds  of  this  appellation,  in  the  three 
first  of  the  cases  just  mentioned  ;  for  as  all  the  uses  of  it 
just  exhibited,  are  of  a  figurative  or  secondary  nature, 
so  the  ground  of  such  usage,  it  is  probable,  may  be  satis- 
factorily traced. 

Sons  of  God,  as  a  designation  of  the  pious,  may  easily 
be  explained.  The  Hebrew  idiom  calls  him  the  son  of  any 
person  or  thing,  who  exhibits  a  resemblance  in  disposi- 
tion or  character.  Thus  our  Saviour  says  to  the  malignant 
and  persecuting  Jews,  who  assailed  him,  "  Ye  are  of  your 
father,  the  devil,  and  ye  are  desirous  to  accomplish  his 
wishes."  So  in  the  first  Epistle  of  John;  '•  By  this  the 
children  of  God  and  the  children  of  the  devil  are  mani- 
fest. Every  one  who  doeth  not  righteousness  is  not  of 
God,  &c."  Agreeably  to  this  idiom,  our  Saviour  says  to 
15 


106  SIGNIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TERMS  [LeT.  VII. 

the  Jews,   "  If  ye  were  the  sons  of  Abraham,  ye  would 
do  the  works  of  Abraham." 

In  hke  manner,  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  Christ 
exhorts  his  disciples  to  show  benevolence  towards  their 
enemies  and  persecutors,  that  they  might  be  the  chil- 
dreti  of  their  Father  in  heaven,  who  dispenses  his  bless- 
ings to  the  just  and  the  unjust ;  i.  e.  that  they  might  be 
imitators  of  his  conduct. 

Another  reason  why  the  pious  are  called  sons  of  God, 
is,  that  they  receive  divine  instruction,  or  are  his  disci- 
ples. In  conformity  with  this  idiom,  Paul  says  to  the 
Corinthians,  "  Ye  have  not  many  fathers,  for  in  Christ 
Jesus  /  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospeV 

"  Those  who  are  of  God,"  says  the  Saviour,  "  hear  the 
words  of  God  ;"  i.  e.  those  who  are  his  children,  listen 
to  his  instructions. 

A  third  reason  seems  to  be  exhibited  in  Rom.  8  :  17. 
"  For  if  we  are  children,  then  are  we  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint  heirs  with  Christ."  The  "inheritance  of  the  saints 
in  light"  is  an  expression,  founded  on  the  recognition  of 
their  character  as  children. 

Lastly,  Christians  are  said  to  be  horn  of  God,  on  ac- 
count of  the  regenerating  influences  of  his  Spirit  on  their 
souls.  Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  they  are  called  the 
sons  or  children  of  God? 

Uniting  all  these  reasons,  it  is  very  easy  to  perceive 
how  natural  it  was  for  Hebrew  writers  to  designate  the 
pious,  by  the  title  sons  of  God, 

The  application  of  the  phrase  to  designate  angels,  is 
also  easily  to  be  accounted  for.  Angels  are  the  minis- 
ters and  vicegerents  of  the  Deity,  to  execute  his  will. 
They  are  of  a  rank  elevated  far  above  men,  in  their 
present  state ;  and  their  appearance  to  men,  in  ancient 


Let.  VIL]  son  and  sons  of  god.  107 

times,  was,  no  doubt,  attended  with  striking  indications  of 
splendour  and  glory.  To  call  them  sotis  of  God,  as  spe- 
cial representatives  of  the  Deity,  and  bearing  a  high  re- 
semblance in  holiness  to  him,  was  very  natural  to  a 
Hebrew. 

Finally,  that  kings  and  superior  magistrates  should  be 
called  the  sons  of  God,  or  the  sons  of  the  most  High,  can 
create  no  wonder  in  the  mind  of  any  one,  who  has  at- 
tended to  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  word  son.  The  idea 
of  a  king  or  chief  magistrate  in  the  East  was,  and  still 
is,  very  different  from  that  which  we  form  in  a  land  of 
Christian  freedom.  Prostration  in  the  dust  before 
kings  and  nobles,  is  the  common  token  of  repect  paid  by 
all  inferiors.  The  subject  feels  that  there  is  an  immea- 
surable distance  between  him  and  his  prince.  Hence  the 
highest  titles  of  honor  and  reverence  are  applied  to  him. 
Sons  of  the  most  high,  spoken  by  a  Hebrew  to  designate 
princes,  would  mean  elevated  to  the  highest  dignity,  con- 
trolling with  absolute  sway  ;  and  thus  bearing  a  resemblance 
to  God,  in  respect  to  the  dominion  which  he  exercises  as 
Lord  of  the  Universe.  It  is  on  this  same  ground,  that 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  call  kings  or  princes,  gods, 
(D'Tl'pJjt)  ;  a  title  perhaps  of  a  still  higher  nature,  than 
sons  of  God  ;  but  perfectly  in  accordance  with  the  ori- 
ental views  of  the  station  and  majesty  of  an  absolute 
monarch.  Being  once  applied  to  such  a  personage,  it 
would  naturally  pass  to  his  vicegerents;  and  so  we  find 
it  used  by  the  Hebrew   writers. 

In  my  investigations,  thus  far,  I  have  foreborne  to 
touch  upon  the  phrase  son  of  God  as  applied  to  Christ. 
We  are  prepared  for  a  proper  investigation  of  this  sub- 
ject, only  when  we  come  to  it  with  correct  general 
views  of  the  latitude  and  peculiarities  of  the  phrase  in 


108  SON  OF  GOD,  [Let.  VIII. 

question,  as  exhibited  bj  the  sacred  writers.  The  way 
I  trust,  is  now  prepared,  to  proceed  with  the  hope  of 
acquiring  satisfaction  respecting  the  great  question  ; 
What  idea  do  the  sacred  writers  attach  to  the  phrase 
Son  of  God,  as  applied  to  Christ  ?  But  the  investigation 
of  this  must  be  reserved  for  another  Letter. 


LETTER  VIII. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

After  the  investigation  of  the  preceding  Letter,  I 
think  it  can  easily  be  made  to  appear,  that  the  name  Son 
of  God  has,  in  some  respects,  a  speciality  of  meaning 
when  applied  to  the  Saviour.  We  have  seen  that  it  is 
only  the  plural  word  sons,  or  the  singular  used  as  a  col- 
lective noun,  which  is  applied  to  designate  believers  ; 
and  that  it  is  said  of  no  believer,  individually  considered 
merely  as  a  believer,  that  he  is  the  son  of  God, 

I  cannot  help  remarking  here,  that  the  same  is  the 
case,  in  regard  to  magistrates  or  princes.  It  is  collec- 
tively, or  as  a  body,  that  they  are  called  D'TlV*??.  gods ; 
and  no  single  magistrate  is  ever  saluted  with  this  appel- 
lation. The  case  where  it  is  said  of  Moses  that  he 
should  be  made  a  god  to  Pharaoh,  is  no  exception  to  this 
remark  ;  as  the  sense  plainly  amounts  to  no  more,  than 
that  Pharaoh  should  be  submitted  to  the  controul  or  dis- 
posal of  Moses,  while  acting  as  the  ambassador  of  God. 
The  case  which  occurs  in  the  forty  fifth  Psalm,  is  not 
one  in  point  to  disprove   what  I   have  alleged  ;   as  the 


Let.  VIII.]  AS  applied  to  christ.  109 

Apostle  has  told  us  this  compellation  is  addressed  to  the 
Son  of  God,  i.  e.  Christ. 

But  to  return,  I  find  no  case,  where  the  term  Son  of 
God  appears  to  be  applied  to  Christ,  simply  on  the 
ground  of  his  moral  resemblance  to  the  Father.  And 
though  he  often  speaks  of  himself  as  having  been  instruct- 
ed by  the  Father;  yet  I  am  unable  to  find  any  passage, 
in  which  the  appellation  of  Son  is  represented  as  be- 
stowed upon  him  on  this  account.  There  remains,  there- 
fore, if  I  am  correct  here,  but  two  of  the  senses  in  which 
the  term  is  elsewhere  used,  that  are  applicable  to 
Christ;  viz,  that  of  derivation  from  the  Father;  and 
that  of  kingly  office,  or  of  the  dignity  of  the  Messiah. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  seek  for  a  sense  wholly  new,  of 
the  phrase  Son  of  God  when  it  is  applied  to  Christ. 
Son  of  God  used  in  the  sense  of  derivation  from  God^ 
would  agree  either  with  the  theory  of  those  who  hold 
the  human  nature  only  of  Christ  to  be  generated  ;  or  of 
those  who  believe  his  divine  nature  to  be  begotten.  In 
either  case,  the  phrase  has  a  sense  analogous  to  that 
which  it  bears,  when  Adam  is  said  to  be  the  son  of  God^ 
or  when  all  men  are  represented  as  the  children  of  God, 
I  say  analogous  ;  for  certainly  in  all  respects  the  sense 
couid  not  be  the  same.  Neither  is  it  when  applied  to 
Adam,  or  to  all  mankind.  But  the  idea  of  derivation 
in  some  way  or  other,  (leaving  the  particular  manner  in 
each  case  to  be  defined  by  its  peculiar  circumstances,)  is 
an  idea  equally  common  to  all  the  three  cases. 

But  although  I  admit,  as  will  speedily  appear,  that 
Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  on  account  of  a  nature 
derived  from  God  ;  yet  I  do  not  think  this  to  be  the 
only  or  the  predominant  reason,  why  this  appellation  is 
given  to  him.     He  is  called  Son^  also,  because  he  is  the 


110  SON  OF  GOD,  [Let.  VIII, 

Messiah,  the  Anointed  One,  the  King  and  Lord  of  the 
Universe,  exalted  over  all  creatures  and  all  worlds. 
Whether  the  evidence  of  what  I  have  now  stated  is 
found  in  the  Scriptures,  is  the  inquiry  on  which,  of  course, 
the  whole  question  turns.  And  to  the  investigation  of 
this,  we  may  now  proceed. 

/.  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  because,  in  respect  to 
his  HUMAN  NATURE,  he  is  derived  from  God, 

You  and  I  are  agreed  in  respect  to  the  twofold  nature 
of  the  Messiah,  a  nature  truly  divine  and  truly  human, 
united  in  the  person  of  Christ.  In  respect  to  his  human 
nature,  we  are  agreed  that  it  is  derived  from  God.  And 
this  derivation  is  one  reason,  as  I  now  propose  to  show, 
why  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  If  this  be  express- 
ly taught  \n  the  Scriptures,  and  it  be  not  taught  that  he 
is  as  to  his  divine  nature  derived,  then  I  cannot  help 
feeling  that  I  am  bound  to  acquiescence  in  the  ground  of 
the  appellation  as  stated  by  the  sacred  writers ;  with- 
out alleging  a  reason  for  the  appellation,  which  I  can- 
not find  in  the  Scriptures. 

Luke  1 :  35.  '•  The  angel  said  to  her,  divine  influence 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  most  High 
shall  overshadow  thee  ;  wherefore  (d^^o)  that  holy  [child^ 
which  shall  be  born,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God," 

Here  then  the  angel  of  God  himself  has  stated  the 
ground  of  the  appellation  Son  of  God,  as  given  to  the  Sa- 
viour, to  be  the  production  of  his  human  nature  by  di- 
vine supernatural  influence.  "  Wherefore  the  holy 
child  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  Whatever  oth- 
er reasons  then  we  admit,  this  must  not  be  excluded. 
It  stands  here  with  a  prominence  and  a  clearness,  which 
render  it  impossible  to  obscure  it. 

The  resemblance  between  the  appellation   here,  and 


Let.  VIII.]  AS  applied  to  christ.  Ill 

that  given  by  Luke  to  Adam,  In  his  chapter  of  geneal- 
ogy, Is  sufficiently  obvious.  Adam  Is  called  the  son  of 
God^  because  divine  and  supernatural  power  was  imme- 
diately exerted,  in  his  creation  "  The  holy  child"  is 
called  the  Son  of  God,  because  the  "  power  of  the  most 
High"  Is  supcrnaturally  exercised  to  produce  his  con- 
ception, A  common  principle  led  to  the  appellation,  in 
both  cases ;  viz,  the  principle  that  God  was,  by  his 
power  or  influence,  In  an  Immediate  and  supernatural 
sense,  the  author  or  father  of  both  Adam  and  the 
"Holy  Child." 

Now  if  the  divine  Logos  was  derived  from  the  Fa- 
ther, was  begotten  from  eternity,  and  was  therefore  Son, 
in  the  highest  sense,  before  the  birth  of  Jesus,  I  am  not 
able  to  understand  how  this  birth  could  be  the  reason, 
why  Christ  should  be  called  the  Son  of  God.  The  an- 
gel does  not  say,  that  the  child  should  be  called  Son  of 
God,  because  the  Logos  who  was  eternally  Son  should 
be  united  with  him  or  dwell  In  him  ;  but  he  should  be 
called  Son,  because  of  supernatural  divine  power  exer- 
cised to  produce  his  conception. 

The  manner  in  which  Turretine  disposes  of  the  tes- 
timony just  adduced,  is  remarkable.  "  Partlcula  (J'^o," 
says  he,  "  est  nota  cotiseqitentiae,  non  conseqiientis,  signi 
cur  sit  vocandus  Fillus,  non  causae,  quia  antequam  con- 
clperetur,  jam  fulsse  dicltur,  Jo.  1 :  L  Phil.  2  :  6.  Un- 
de  non  dicit  simpliciter,  erit,  sed  xAf^Of^oeiaiy  id  est,  man- 
ifest abitur.^^     Tom.  I.  p.  331. 

In  respect  to  the  passages  cited  ;  John  1:  1,  asserts 
that  the  Logos  was  in  the  beginning,  and  was  God  ;  but 
John  says  not  a  word  concerning  Son,  it  should  be  noted, 
until  he  has  mentioned  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos.  It 
is  then  that  he  speaks  of  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten* 


112  SON  OF  GOD,  [Let.  Vlll. 

The  passage  in  Philippians  speaks  of  Christ  as  hav- 
ing, previously  to  his  incarnation,  been  in  the  form  of 
God  (ev  (jLopcprf  &£ov.)  and  equal  with  him,  but  as  having 
assumed  our  nature,  suffered  in  it,  and  in  consequence 
of  this,  as  having  a  name  given  to  him  above  every 
name,  and  being  highly  exalted.  As  God  or  divine  Lo- 
gos, surely  he  was  not  capable  of  exaltation  ;  but  as 
Messiah,  triumphant  over  death  and  hell,  as  the  incar- 
nate Saviour,  he  could  be  exalted  from  his  state  of  hu- 
miliation and  suffering  to  one  of  supreme  dignity  and 
glory. 

All  then  that  the  passages  prove,  which  Turretine 
has  cited,  is  merely  that  the  Logos,  or  the  /uo^jfr^  Sfov 
existed,  antecedently  to  the  incarnation.  But  who,  ex- 
cept Socinians,  denies  this  ?  Beyond  all  reasonable 
question  the  pre-existence  of  the  Logos  is  established 
by  these  passages ;  but  not  his  eternal  Sonship.  Of 
this,  neither  text  says  any  thing. 

The  criticism  of  this  learned  divine  on  the  particle 
dio  is  very  extraordinary.  He  represents  it  as  a  parti- 
cle transitive^  but  not  illative  here.  To  express  his 
views,  we  must  translate  the  verse  in  question  thus; 
"The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  pow- 
er of  the  highest  shall  overshadow  thee,  in  consequence 
of  which,  [or,  so  that]  the  holy  [child,]  which  shall  be 
born  of  thee,  shall  be  revealed  as  the  Son  of  God."  A 
translation  without  usage  to  support  it ;  against  the  laws 
of  the  language  ;  and  without  any  parallel,  with  which 
I  am  acquainted.  Jio  is  simply  an  abridged  form  of 
writing  dta  o,  and  means,  as  Schleusner  expresses  it, 
quare^  quo  prater^  ideo,  propter  ea.  In  Hebrew-Greek,  it  is 
twice  a  transitive  particle  ;  viz.  in  Rom.  2  :  1,  and 
James  1:21.     But  the  meaning  of  it  here,  and  the  sit- 


Let.  Vlfl.]  AS  APPLIED  TO  CHRIST.  113 

uatlon  In  which  it  stands,  are  both  entirely  diverse  from 
the  meaning  which  Turretine  assigns  It,  and  the  situa- 
tion of  it  in  Luke  1  :  35.  In  Rom  2  :  1,  and  James  1: 
21,  it  is  by  necessity  of  the  context,  and  by  this  only, 
rendered  transitively.  That  necessity  springs  from  the 
fact,  that  what  succeeds  the  word  dio,  in  both  cases.  Is 
matter  entirely  diverse  from  what  precedes  ;  so  that  to 
render  the  particle  dm  by  moreover,  or  further^  besides, 
&;c,  is  forced  upon  us  ab  exigentia  loci. 

In  Luke  1  ;  35,  a  similar  translation  of  dio  would 
make  a  mere  frigid  sense,  or  rather  little  short  of  non- 
sense. And  what  is  most  conclusive  against  any  at- 
tempt to  change  the  usual  sense  o(  dco  here,  Is^  that  this 
particle  instead  of  standing  at  the  commencement  of 
a  new  subject,  (as  It  does  in  the  cases  noted  above,) 
stands  between  the  protasis  and  epitasis  of  a  sentence; 
in  which  position  it  Is  always  and  necessarily  illative. 
Accordingly,  neither  Scapula  nor  Schneider  assign  to  It 
any  other  sense  than  the  Illative  one.  zAo,  says  Scapu- 
la, guamobrem,  quocirca,  proinde :  and  Schneider  says, 
propter  quod,  propterea,  desivegen,  weswegen^  daher.  In 
fact,  to  assign  It  any  other  sense  than  this.  Is  out  o{  ques- 
tion ;  unless  In  a  case  of  absolute  compulsion,  Avhere  a 
new  subject  is  commenced.  And  of  this,  two  Instances 
only  are  produced,  in  all  the  Lexicons ;  both  of  which 
differ  widely  In  respect  to  circumstances  and  meaning, 
from  the  case  under  consideration. 

I  take  It  for  granted,  that  a  priori  reasoning  cannot 
determine  the  laws  of  philology,  nor  prove  the  usiis 
loqiiendi  of  language  as  to  Sio.  That  Turretine  felt  the 
necessity  of  doing  violence  to  the  laws  of  usage,  in  the 
case  under  consideration,  can  not  appear  strange,  to 
any  one  who  considers  how  incompatible  the  usual  sense 
16 


114  SON  OF  GOD,  [Let.  VIIL 

of  the  word  would  be  with  his  theory,  and  how  difficult 
it  is  to  submit  a  favourite  dogma  to  the  simple  language 
of  the  Scriptures.  But  that  we  are  obliged  to  philolo- 
gize  as  Turretine  does,  is  a  position  which  we  are  at 
liberty  to  doubt,  without  peril  of  the  greater  excom- 
niunication. 

The  violence  done  to  (^w,  however,  is  not  more 
remarkable,  than  that  which  is  done  to  xh^i^jjueiai, 
"  Non   dicit   (says   he)   simpliciter  en7,    sed  TtAt^d^r^afiat, 

i.  e.  MANIFESTABITIJK." 

First,  then,  that  xaAeiot^at  in  Hebrew-Greek  often 
signifies  the  same  as  esse  to  be,  is  a  thing  too  well  known 
and  obvious  to  require  any  proof  here.  See  Schleus. 
Lex.  in  voc.  KaAeco,  No.  10.  It  is  an  idiom,  which  ex- 
tends even  to  the  native  Greek  ;  as  Schleusner  has 
shewn,  on  the  word  just  cited;  and  Schneider,  on  the 
same  word.  It  is  therefore  a  version  perfectly  justi- 
fiable by  the  usiis  loquoidL  if  we  translate,  '^''Therefore  shall 
t!ie  holy  [child]  be  fche  Son  of  God." 

Sut  secondly,  the  common  sense  of  xaXeco  is  to  name 
or  surnarne,  to  give  any  person  or  thing  a  title  or  designation  ; 
and  agreeably  to  this,  have  our  English  translators, 
faithful  to  the  Original,  rendered  the  verse  in  question. 
But  for  the  sense  manijestabitur,  there  is  no  example. 
It  is  a  mere  arbitrary  sense  imposed  upon  the  passage 
by  Turretine,  to  avoid  the  contradiction  of  his  favour- 
ite theory. 

But  to  return  from  this  examination.  We  have  then 
one  express  reason  for  the  appellation  Son  of  God,  as  giv- 
en to  Christ;  a  reason  too  which  has  analogy  to  sup- 
port it.  But,  in  analogy  with  other  cases  also,  there  is 
more  than  one  reason  why  he  is  thus  named.  Chris- 
tians are  the  sons  of  God,  as  the  author  of  their  being. 


Let.  VIII.]  AS  applied  to  christ.  115 

But  thej  are  his  sons  also  for  other  reasons;  viz, 
from  moral  resemblance  to  him ;  from  being  taught  or 
guided  by  him;  from  the  filial  blessings  which  thej  re- 
ceive ;  and  from  their  spiritual  birth  or  change.  Kings 
are  the  sons  of  God  in  common  with  all  men,  as  he  is 
the  Father  oC  their  spirits  ;  but  they  are  also  the  sons 
of  the  most  High,  on  account  of  their  dignity  or  eleva- 
tion. Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  in  like  manner  on 
several  accounts.  His  derivation,  as  to  the  human  na- 
ture which  he  possessed,  is  from  God  the  Father;  al- 
though it  is  a  derivation  exceedingly  diverse  from  that 
of  kings;  as  Christ  had  no  natural  father.  And  even 
so  is  it,  in  respect  to  his  kingly  office  or  dignity  as  Mes- 
siah ;  this  dignity  being  incomparably  higher  than  that 
of  any  earthly  monarchs.     But  this  brings  me 

H.  To  the  second  reason,  which  the  inspired  apostles 
have  given,  why  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  :  viz, 
the  elevated  dignity,  that  was  conferred  on  Mm  as  the  Messiah, 

In  Acts  13:  32,  33,  Paul  in  addressing  the  Jews  at 
Antioch,  says,  "  We  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings,  how 
that  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  God 
hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  up  Jesus  again  ;  as  it  is  written  in  the  second 
Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee:'' 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead,  then,  is  the 
accomplishment  of  that  prediction  in  the  second  Psalm, 
which  speaks  of  Christ  as  Son,  and  of  h\s  generation.  But 
why  should  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  constitute  a  reason 
for  the  appellation  in  question?  Others  have  been 
raised  from  the  dead  besides  Jesus.  The  answer,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  must  be,  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was  the  commencement  of  his  elevation  to  supreme  dig- 
nity— a  pledge,  an  earnest  of  all  which  was  to  follow. 


116  SON  OF  GOD,  [Let.  VIll. 

It  is  thus  that  the  same  Apostle  seems    to  view    the 
subject,  in   Romans  1:4.      "Constituted   the    powerful 

Son  of  God by    his    resurrection   from   the   dead." 

The  word  oQiaOevioQ^  which  in  our  Version,  and  even  by 
Schleusner,  is  translated  declared  or  demonstrafed,  I  can- 
not think  to  be  susceptible  of  this  meaning.  The  prop- 
er meaning  of  o^^^'oj  is  to  limits  define^  determine,  decree  ; 
and  secondarily  to  constitute,  because  many  things  are 
constituted  by  determining  or  decreeing.  Thus,  in  Acts 
10:  42,  Christ  is  said  by  Peter  to  ''  be  constituted  (oJ^^a- 
ixevog)  by  God  the  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead." 
And  thus  in  other  cases,  as  may  be  seen  in  Schleusner. 

It  is  sufficient  to  remark  here,  in  justification  of  the 
translation  which  1  have  given,  that  with  the  exception 
of  the  case  in  question,  no  instance  can  be  produced,  in 
which  the  word  has  the  sense  assigned  to  it  in  our 
Version.  It  always  has  respect  to  something,  which  is 
prospective  at  the  time  when  the  action  indicated  by 
6^)ilco  took  place,  not  to  any  thing  then  retrospective, 
Storr,  many  years  since,  made  this  remark  upon  the  force 
of  the  word  op<>j ;  a  remark,  like  most  others  vvhich  he 
has  made  on  the  subject  of  philology,  proceeding  from  a 
nice  discrimination  of  the  force  of  language. 

But  be  this  criticism  as  it  may,  it  is  not  very  impor- 
tant to  my  design.  ''  Declared  or  demonstrated  to  be  the 
powerful  Son  of  God,  by  his  I'esurrection,"  may  still  have 
respect,  (and  if  this  be  the  sense,  I  doubt  not  it  has  re- 
spect,) to  Christ  as  l\\e  Messiah.  The  sense  is  more 
congruous,  however,  which  the  version  above  gives  ;  and 
then  the  passage,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  words  of 
Paul  in  the  Acts,  indicates  that  the  resurrection  was  the 
commencement  of  that  elevation  to  which  Christ  was 
raised;  and  being  a  part  of  his  elevation  was  therefore 
a  reason,  why  he  is  called  the  Son  of  God. 


Let.  VIIL]  as  applied  to  christ  117 

There  is  I  think  an  additional  reason  why  he  is  so 
called,  the  mention  of  which  ought  not  to  be  neglected. 
When  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  there  was  the 
commencement  of  a  neiv  life,  i.  e.  something  analogous  to 
birth  or  generation.  The  lowest  point  of  his  humilia- 
tion, was  that  of  death  and  burial  in  the  tomb.  From  the 
moment  the  new  life  or  resurrection  commenced,  his  ele- 
vation began.  All  in  future  was  to  be  exaltation.  Bj 
the  resurrection,  therefore,  he  was  Son  of  God  on  ac- 
count of  a  reproduction  or  reanimation  ;  as  well  as  con- 
stituted Son  by  being  placed  in  the  exalted  state  of  Mes- 
siah, or  made  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church. 

That  the  sacred  writers  do  apply  to  him  the  title 
Son  of  God,  because  he  is  the  Messiah  i.  e.  the  Christ  or 
Anointed  One  ;  in  other  words,  because  he  is  the  King, 
Head,  or  Lord  of  all  things,  in  his  capacity  as  the  Messi- 
ah or  Saviour;  may  be  shewn  by  other  evidence,  than 
that  which  has  been  already  adduced.  Nay,  that  after 
all,  this  is  the  principal  or  predominant  reason  for  giving 
him  this  apf)ellation,  will  appear,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from 
the  following  passages. 

When  the  Saviour  appealed  to  his  disciples,  and  ask- 
ed them,  "  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am?  Simon  Peter  an- 
swered and  said.  Thou  art  the  Christ  (the  Messiah,)  the 
Son  of  the  living  God."     Matt.  16:  15,  16. 

In  Mark  8:  29,  the  same  reply  is  recorded  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  ;  "  Thou  art  the  Christ."  Now  if"  Son  of 
the  living  God,"  which  is  mentioned  by  Matthew,  con- 
veyed a  meaning  different  from  that  of  Christ  or  Messi- 
ah, wl^y  should  Mark  omit  so  important  an  addition  to 
that  part  of  Peter's  reply  which  he  has  recorded  ? 

Luke  has  given  us  a  form  different  from  both  the  oth- 
ers.   (9:  20.)  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  of  God."     I  say  a 


118  SON  OP  GODj  [Let.  VIII. 

different  form  ;  for  this  is  all.  To  saj,  "Thou  art  the 
Christ,"  or  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  of  God,"  or  "  Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  conveys,  as 
I  think  will  be  satisfactorily  evinced,  the  same  idea  in 
each  case. 

This  confession  Jesus  highly  approved,  pronounced 
his  blessing  upon  it,  and  then  "charged  his  disciples 
that  they  should  tell  no  man,  that  he  was  Jesus  the 
Christ."  (v.  20.)  That  he  was  the  Christ  or  Messiah, 
then,  appears  to  comprehend  the  essential  p«r/ of  Peter's 
confession,  and  to  convey  the  same  idea,  to  the  mind  of 
Jesus  and  his  disciples,  as  to  say  that  he  was  the  "  Son 
of  the  living  God."  The  parallelism,  indeed,  between 
Christ  and  the  Son  of  the  living  God  is  so  apparent,  in 
the  very  mode  of  the  expression,  as  well  as  from  the 
nature  and  genius  of  the  Hebrew  language,  that  we  can 
hardly  doubt  that  the  one  phrase  is,  in  this  case,  equiv- 
alent to  the  other. 

But  if  we  doubt  that  Son  of  God  is  hero  equivalent  to 
Messiah  or  King  of  Israel,  those  doubts  may  be  remov- 
ed by  further  examination  of  the  Jewish  usus  loquendi, 
"Rabbi,"  said  the  Israelite  without  guile,  to  his  divine 
Master,  "  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  King  of 
Israel."  John  1:  49.  As  in  the  case  above.  Son  of  God  is 
explicative  of  Christ ;  so  here,  King  of  Israel  is  explica- 
tive o^  Son  of  God;  and  if  so,  then  the  two  phrases  are 
suhstantially  equivalent  to  each  other. 

On  another  occasion,  when  some  who  had  professed 
to  be  the  disciples  of  Jesus  had  left  him,  he  said  to  the 
twelve  apostles,"  Will  ye  also  go  away?  Then  Simon 
Peter  answered  him,  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go?  Thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.  And  we  believe  and  are 
sure,  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.'' 


Let.  VIII.]  AS  applied  to  christ.  119 

John  6:68,69.  Tlie  two  expressions  here  are  the 
same,  as  in  the  case  of  Peter's  confession  already  pro- 
duced. I  cannot  but  feel  that  they  constitute  a  parallel- 
ism, in  the  view  of  the  apostle  who  uttered  them  ;  just 
as  when  Thomas  said.  My  Lord  and  my  God,  he  meant 
substantially  the  same  thing  by  both  phrases. 

In  like  manner,  when  Jesus  asked  Martha  whether 
she  believed  in  his  power  to  save  from  death  those  who 
trusted  in  him,  she  replied,  "Yea,  Lord;  I  believe  that 
thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come 
into  the  world  ;"  i.  e.  thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  expect- 
ed deliverer  and  the  king  of  the  Jews.  John  11  :  27. 

The  woman  of  Samaria  uses  another  expression,  as 
parallel  to,  or  exegetical  of,  the  word  Messiah  or 
Christ.  "  We  know  this  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world.''''    John  4  :  42. 

But  to  show  how  common  the  idiom  was  among  the 
Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time,  by  which  Christ  and  the  Son 
of  God  were  used  as  parallel  expressions,  other  instances 
may  be  adduced  of  its  usage,  out  of  the  circle  of  the 
disciples.  Thus  the  demons  say,  '-Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,^''  Luke  4:  41  ;  if  the  common  copies  of 
our  Greek  Testament  be  correct.  Griesbach  has,  how- 
ever, rejected  the  word  6  X^tojog  here  from  the  text  ; 
while  Titmann  has  admitted  it,  but  not  without  an  index 
that  it  is  suspected. 

The  Sanhedrim,  who  examined  Jesus  previously  to 
his  condemnation,  asked  him,  "Art  thou  the  Christ?" 
He  replied  by  saying,  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  here- 
after be  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God. 
They  repeated  the  question,  with  earnestness,  l^v  ow  ei 
6  vlog  lov  Oaov  ;  "  Art  thou  then  {ovv  then,  indeed,  verily 
then)  the  Son  of  God?''    Luke  22  :  67,  70,     Here   it  is 


120  SON  or  GOD,  [Let.  Vlll. 

evident  that  the  same  question,  so  far  as  the  essential 
meaning  of  it  is  concerned,  is  repeated  in  the  second  in- 
stance as  in  the  first ;  although  the  words  differ,  and  the 
intensive  ow  is  added  to  the  second  question,  in  order  to 
show  the  earnestness  of  the  speakers. 

In  like  manner  the  high  priest,  during  the  trial  of  Je- 
sus, said,  "  I  adjure  thee  by  the  Hving  God  that  thou  tell 
us,  whether  thou  art  the  Christy  the  Son  of  God^  Matt. 
26  :  63.  Here  both  expressions  meet  in  the  same  ques- 
tion ;  as  in  the  case  above,  they  followed  each  other  in 
different  questions ;  and  both  are  plainly  designed  to 
make  the  inquiry,  Art  thou  the  promised,  the  expected 
Messiah  of  the  Jews?  Surely  the  high  priest  and  the 
Sanhedrim  did  not  mean  to  ask  Jesus^  whether  he  was 
eternally  and  necessarily  begotten  of  God. 

FroQi  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  then,  we 
have  one  and  the  same  use  of  the  phrase  Son  of  God,  viz. 
to  designate  the  Christ  or  Messiah,  the  expected  King  of 
Israel.  The  beloved  disciple,  who  leaned  on  Jesus'  bosom, 
has  added  his  own  testimony  to  this  usage.  Speaking 
of  his  gospel  he  says,  "These  things  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christy  the  Son  of  God. 
And  in  the  same  manner,  Paul  in  his  Epistles  says; 
''  For  the  Son  of  God^  Jesus  Christy  who  was  preached  by 
us  ;"  i.  e.  the  Son  of  God,  viz,  Jesus  the  Messiah.  2  Cor. 
1:19. 

More  cases  of  a  similar  nature  might  be  added  ;  but 
I  forbear.  Enough  has  been  adduced  to  shew  the  usii^ 
loquendi  of  the  apostolic  age,  among  the  Jews.  Let  it 
now  be  called  to  mind,  that  every  wTiter  or  speaker, 
who  means  to  be  understood,  must  necessarily  use  lan- 
guage in  the  same  sense,  in  which  the  age  and  nation  to 
which  he  belongs  use  it.      And  if  this  be  admitted,  how 


Let.  VIII.]  as  applied  to  christ.  121 

shall  we  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  Son  of  God  was  the 
designation  of  Ciirist  as  the  expected  Messiah  of  the 
Jews,  as  the  King  who  was  to  subdue  all  nations,  and 
reduce  them  under  his  government  ? 

That  the  phrase  So7i  of  God  pertains  to  Christ  as  Mes- 
siah or  incarnate  Saviour  and  exalted  head  over  all 
things,  and  not  to  the  Logos  considered  simply  in  respect 
to  his  state  before  the  incarnation,  may  be  rendered  still 
more  probable,  from  those  prophetic  texts  in  the  Old 
Testament,  whicli  describe  the  future  birth  of  the  Son 
of  God. 

To  begin  with  the  famous  passage  in  Ps.  2:7.  "  Thou 
art  my  Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  What  is 
then  the  subject  of  this  Psalm,  and  in  what  attitude 
does  it  place  the  personage,  who  is  styled  Son  ?  A  rea- 
dy answer  is  afforded  by  the  preceding  verse,  and  by 
the  whole  context.  "  Yet  have  I  set  my  King  upon  my 
holy  hill  of  Zion.  I  will  publish  the  decree."  What  de- 
cree ?  Why  plainly  that  which  makes  or  constitutes  hira 
King,  And  what  Is  it?  "The  Lord  hath  said  to  me, 
Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.'^^  This  is 
the  decree  or  sentence,  which  constitutes  him  King  in 
Zion.  What  follows  this  elevation  ?  Why,  that  all  nations 
shall  come  under  his  dominion,  and  that  his  enemies  shall 
be  dashed  in  pieces. 

Surely  no  other  generation  of  the  Son  is  intimated 
here,  but  his  exaltation  to  the  dignity  of  King  and  Lord. 
And  It  is  in  exact  consonance  with  this,  that  Peter  ex- 
plains the  very  passage  in  question,  In  Acts  13  ;  accom- 
modating it  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  was  the 
very  circumstance  that  commenced  his  elevation  to  the 
throne  of  supreme  dominion. 

Let  me  present  the  subject  in  another  light.  The 
17 


122  SON  OF  GOD,  '  [Let.  VIIL 

second  Psalai  is  prediction  ;  and  prediction  concerning 
the  future  Messiah;  (v.  2,  'in^Ili^.)  As  Messiah  he  is 
King  ;  and  as  Messiah  he  is  Son, "  But  if  he  had  been 
Son  from  eternitv,  could  it  be  prophesied  that  he  was  yet 
to  be  a  Son^  and  to  be  begotten  at  a  future  period  ?  Or  shall 
we  with  Clemens  Alexandrlnus  saj,  that  after  the  Son 
was  begotten  previously  to  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
he  begat  himself  again  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  ? 

In  regard  to  the  exegesis,  which  makes  this  day  to 
mean  eternity,  because  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a 
thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day,  I  can- 
not feel  that  it  deserves  a  serious  refutation.  It  is  so 
unexampled,  so  evident  a  perversion  of  the  design  of 
the  writer,  and  so  plainly  the  result  of  being  pressed 
with  difficulty  by  tlie  text  as  it  stands,  that  it  needs  only 
to  be  read  with  candour  to  be  rejected. 

Two  other  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  contain 
the  phrase  in  question,  and  relate,  as  I  believe,  to  Christ 
or  the  Son  of  God.  The  first,  in  2  Sam.  7:  14,  ex- 
hibits a  promise,  that  God  at  some  future  period  would 
raise  up  of  the  seed  of  David  (v.  12)  a  King,  (v.  13)  re- 
specting whom  it  is  said,  '^  I  will  be  his  Father,  and  he 
shall  be  my  Son."  The  same  sentiment  is  recognized  by 
the  Psalmist,  Ps.  89:  3,  4,  20—27.  In  the  latter  pas-- 
sage,  it  is  said,  "  He  shall  cry  to  me.  Thou  art  my  Father 
■ And  I  will  make  him  my  first  bokn." 

Here  we  have  predictions^  not  only  of  a  future  Son, 
but  of  ?i  future  first  born.  I  am  unable  to  conceive,  how 
that  which  existed  from  all  eternity,  should  be  thus 
spoken  of  as  yet  to  exist,  at  di  future  period. 

If  I  am  correct  then,  the  Logos,  before  his  incarna- 
tion, was  not,  strictly  speaking.  Son  of  God,  but  only  to 
become  so  by  union  with  the  person  of  Jesus.     And  is  it 


Let.  VIIL]  as  applied  to  christ.  123 

not  thus,  that  the  apostle  John  represents  the  subject, 
when  he  introduces  the  Logos  to  our  consideration,  as 
he  existed  in  a  previous  state  ?  Then  he  was  npog  rov 
Geov,  and  was  Geog.  But  it  was  only  after  "  he  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  that  the  apostle  speaks  of 
'^  the  glory  of  the  only  Begotten,  full  of  grace  and 
truth,"  which  the  disciples  saw.  It  is  the  "  only  begot- 
ten Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  (1.  e.  most 
dear  to  him  or  beloved  by  him.^Y  ^^^^^  \^^i\\  declared  him." 
Surely  it  is  the  Messiah,  and  he  only  who  has  made  such 
a  revelation;  not  the  Logos  before  the  incarnation. 

Consonant  with  this  mode  of  speaking  Is  the  language 
of  Paul,  when  he  has  occasion  to  make  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  divine  and  human  natures  united  in  Christ.  In 
Rom.  9  : 5,  he  speaks  of  the  descent  of  Christ  karcc 
aapxa,  as  to  his  human  nature,  from  the  Jews  ;  but  how 
does  he  characterize  the  divine  nature  which  dwelt  in 
Jesus?  By  saying  that  this  divine  nature  was  the  Son  of 
God  ?  No;  but  by  calling  him  "  God  over  all,  i.  e.  su- 
preme God,  blessed  forever."  Such  I  believe  the  Lo- 
gos to  be  ;  supreme  God,  not  derived ;  not  secondary,  as 
Justin  and  other  fathers  call  him  ;  not  begotten,  not  ema- 
nated, not  subordinate.  That  the  Son  (as  Son)  is  subordi- 
nate and  derived,  I  most  freely  grant  is  a  doctrine  of 
Scripture  ;  but  that  the  Logos  is  so,  I  have  found  no 
satisfactory  evidence. 

I  must  not  omit  a  passage  in  Paul's  writings  which 
stands  a  few  verses  preceding  the  one  just  quoted.  "All 
things,"  says  the  apostle,  "shall  work  together  for  good 

to  those  who  love  God whom  he  did  predestinate 

to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  (the 

*  Compare  the  passage  respecting  the  beloved  disciple,  who  lean- 
ed on  the  bosom  of  Jesus.  To  explain  the  idiom,  see  also  2  Sam.  12  :  3- 


124  sox\  OF  GOD,  [Let.  VIII. 

Son)  might  be  the  first  born,  {jigcomToxog^  'preeminent^ first 
in  rank  or  dignity^)  among  many  brethren."  Rom.  8  :  29. 
Now  in  what  sense  is  the  Son  a  brother  of  the  saints?  Is 
it  as  the  divine  and  eternal  Logos  ;  or  as  the  Logos  in- 
carnate, who  had  "  become  a  partaker  of  flesh  and  blood, 
because  the  children  partake  of  the  same  ?"  Heb.  2  :  14. 
The  answer  may  be  given  in  tUc  words  of  Paul,  in  anoth- 
er passage.  "He  that  sanctifieth,  (Christ,  the  captain 
of  our  salvation,)  and  tiiej  who  are  sanctified,  (Chris- 
tians,) ARE  ALL  OF  ONE;  for  ickick  causc,  he  is  not  ashamed 
to  call  them  brethren  ;  saying,  I  will  declare  thy  name 
unto  my  brethren,  &;c.  Hcb.  2  :  11,  12. 

Saints,  then,  are  the  brethren  of  Christ,  because  they 
are  the  sons  of  God  and  he  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  but  can 
we  draw  the  inference  from  this,  that  they  have  a  na- 
ture really  divine,  because  they  are  his  brethren?  Can 
the  title,  then,  in  itself  considered,  prove  that  Christ  is  a 
divine  person  ;  or  can  it  be  assumed,  that  the  title  neces- 
sarily imports  this? — I  know  the  Jews,  in  one  instance, 
argued  in  this  way  ;  but  of  this  more  hereafter. 

Finally  if  the  title  Son  necessarily  imports  eternal 
generation  and  divine  nature,  I  am  utterly  unable  to 
make  out  any  exegesis  of  the  1  Corinth.  15:  28.  Thus 
the  passage  stands  ;  "  When  all  things  shall  be  subdued 
unto  him  [the  Son]  then  shall  the  Son  himself  he  sub- 
ject unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may 
be  ALL  IN  ALL.  If  Son  then  be  (as  such)  the  divine  Lo- 
gos, be  eternally  begotten,  and  very  God  of  very  God, 
what  is  this  subjection  ?  And  how  is  he,  who  in  his  divine 
nature  is  "God  over  all,"  and  immutable,  to  become 
subject  to  the  Father,  in  order  that  God  may  be  all  in 
ALL?  I  will  not  say,  it  is  impossible  to  solve  these  ques- 
tions ;  but  I  must  say,  I  can  find  no  solution  of  them  on 


Let.  VIII.]  AS  APPLIED  TO  CHRIST.  125 

the  ground,  which  refers  the  appellation  Son  of  God,  to 
the  eternal  generation  of  a  nature  divine. 

I  have  produced  the  ground  of  mj  dissent  from  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation.  It  will  be  incumbent  on 
me,  before  I  take  leave  of  the  subject,  to  notice  the  ar- 
guments which  are  adduced  in  support  of  it.  But  this 
must  be  reserved  for  another  Letter. 


LETTER  IX. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

In  considering  the  arguments  adduced  to  support  the 
theory  o[  eternal  generation,  I  will  first  follow  Turretine, 
who  certainly  is  one  of  the  ablest  advocates  of  this  doc- 
trine, and  who  has  laid  out  very  much  of  his  strength  in 
its  defence. 

He  begins  with  the  passage  from  the  second  Psalm  ; 
but  as  I  have  already  examined  this,  I  will  not  again 
dwell  upon  it.  In  commenting  on  this  passage,  he  ad- 
verts to  another  in  Hebrews,  1:  5  ;  which  has  often  been 
adduced,  and  which  claims  an  examination.  The  wri- 
ter of  this  Epistle  is  here  endeavouring  to  prove  the  su- 
periority of  Christ  over  the  angels.  He  represents 
him  as  exalted  above  them,  because  he  has  obtained  a 
more  excellent  name  than  they.  "  For,"  says  he,  "  unto 
which  of  the  angels  said  he  [the  Father]  at  any  time, 
Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ?  And 
again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me 
a  Son." 


^^Q  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

It  needs  no  argument,  I  suppose,  to  prove  that  the 
naine  obtained  by  inheritance  cannot  be  literally  under- 
stood. For  then  it  would  necessarily  imply  the  death 
of  the  Father,  in  consequence  of  which  his  title  descend- 
ed to  the  Son.  The  whole  difficulty  in  the  passage  is 
made  by  inadequate  versions  of  it,  TtexAi^poyo/ut^xev  being 
translated  as  signifying,  obtained  by  inheritance.  Now 
nothing  is  plainer,  than  that  the  word  xA)^povoficco,  as  em- 
ployed by  the  Hebrew-Greek,  corresponds  exactly  to 
the  Hebrew  word  "0")^;  which  means  to  gel,  acquire,  ob- 
tain possession  of,  in  any  manner,  or  at  any  time.  It  was 
thus  that  the  Israelites  inherited  the  land  of  Canaan, 
from  its  heathen  inhabitants. 

Christ  then  is  exalted  above  the  angels,  because  he 
has  obtained  a  more  honorable  title  than  they.  But 
what  is  this  title  ?  Angels  too  are  called  sons  of  God, 
God  is  the  author  of  their  being.  They  are  a  bright 
reflection  of  his  moral  perfections.  They  are  most  like 
to  him  of  all  his  rational  creatures,  of  which  we  have 
any  knowledge.  It  is  not  then,  because  Son  designates 
DERIVATION  from  God,  that  Clirist  has  a  higher  title  than 
the  angels,  when  he  is  called  Son.  For  a  similar  reason 
they  too  might  be  called  Sons,  What  then  is  the  ground 
of  preference  ?  Why  plainly  the  one  which  has  already 
been  assigned,  viz,  that  Son  designates  Christ  as  King, 
the  Messiah,  the  Hsad  over  all  things,  the  agxn  ruler  of 
the  creation  of  God.  In  both  the  passages  which  the 
apostle  quotes,  the  context  evidently  shews  that  the  ti- 
tle Son  is  given  to  Christ,  as  the  constituted  King  of 
Zion. 

But  farther.  How  could  he  obtain  a  better  title  than 
the  angels  ?  If  he  were  Son  eternally,  did  he  obtain  a  fil- 
iation ?  And  could  the  prophecies  quoted,  speak  of  his 
filiation  as  future  ? 


Let.  IX.]         IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  127 

The  angels  are  all  ministering  servants;"  but  Christ, 
the  "  head  of  the  creation  of  God,  and  preeminent  over 
every  creature  (npanoToxog  jr^gnaaj^g  xt/(J6«?,")  Christ  the 
Son  of  God,  has  a  rank  and  dignity  far  above  them. 

The  second  argument  of  Turretine  is  derived  from 
Prov.  8:22;  the  chapter  which  contains  a  beautiful  and 
poetic  personification  of  divine  wisdom.  It  would  lead 
me  into  too  wide  a  field,  to  discuss  the  subject  of  this 
text  at  length  ;  a  text  on  which  all  the  Fathers,  who 
held  to  the  antcmundane  or  to  the  eternal  generation 
of  the  Son,  placed  so  much  reliance  ;  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  which  they  have  been  followed  too,  by  the 
great  multitude  of  divines  in  later  ages.  I  will  only 
say,  that  the  preceding  and  succeeding  context  shows, 
that  wisdom  is  an  attribute  and  not  a  person,  a  virtue 
and  not  a  concrete  being.  A  better  understanding  of 
the  nature  of  Hebrew  poetry  and  of  poetic  language  in 
general,  would  have  saved,  as  I  must  believe,  all  the 
speculations  that  have  been  indulged,  respecting  this 
celebrated  passage. 

But  if  one  must  needs  have  it,  that  it  shall  be  under- 
stood of  the  Logos,  and  his  eternal  generation ;  then 
there  lies  an  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  way,  from  the 
lan2:uao:e.  "  When  there  was  no  depths  ^TI^PIH  1  was 
brought  forth  ; — before  the  hills  ^rpy^ri  was  I  brought 
Jorth.^^  It  is  the  action  o( parturition  and  not  of  genera- 
tion, which  is  indicated  by  this  language. 

Excepting  the  figurative  sense  o(  creating  or  of  form- 
ing, the  verb  in  question  has  no  other  meaning  that 
classes  under  this  category.  Neither  of  these  meanings 
however^  would  comport  with  the  Nicene  Creed  any 
better  than  "  brought  forth."^^ 

3.  Turretine  adduces   the  passage    in  Micah  5:  1,  in 


128  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS       [LeT.  IX. 

which  it  is  said  of  a  personage  (the  Messiah,  who  is  to 
spring  from,  or  as  the  Hebrew  runs  to  come  out  o/"  Beth- 
lehem Euphratah,)  that  his  goings  forth  are  of  old^  even 
from  the  days  of  eternity.  In  Turretine's  ap[)rehension, 
this  characterises  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
plainly  represents  it  as  eternal. 

But  the  phrase  is,  at  least,  susceptible  of  two  mean- 
ings, which  differ  from  this  ;  either  of  which  appears 
to  me  more  probable  than  this.  The  first  is,  that 
the  Messiah  should  descend  from  a  very  ancient  and  il- 
lustrious  house.  For  the  words  Sip.  ^^d  ^>",  rendered 
by  Turretine  eternity,  are  like  the  Greek  enow.,  that 
also  signifies  an)^  thing  ancient,  which  has  endured,  or  is 
to  endure  for  a  long  period.  The  question  when  these 
words  are  to  have  the  meaning  of  absolute  eternity,  and 
when  the  sense  of  ancient  or  very  old^  is  always  to  be 
determined  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  i.  e.  by  the  con- 
text. But  the  context,  in  the  present  case,  is  not  suffi- 
ciently specific  to  determine  with  certainty.  Of  course, 
I  must  concede  that  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  as  I 
have  just  given  it,  (though  so  interpreted  by  Rosen- 
mueller,)  remains  somewhat  uncertain. 

A  second  meaning  may  be,  (and  most  probably  it  is 
the  real  one,)  that  the  personage,  who  was  to  be  born, 
should  unite  with  him  or  in  him  an  eternal  nature,  one 
which  did  not  commence  with  his  birth  in  Bethlehem, 
but  one  which  was  eternal,  or  which  had  no  beginning. 
Exactly  correspondent  with  this  sentiment,  is  that  of 
Isaiah,  in  Chap,  ix  ;  where  speaking  of  the  Son  who 
was  to  be  born,  and  to  be  made  universal  King,  he  calls 
him,  among  other  names,  the  mighty  God,  the  father  of 
eternity  (iy_  *^DN  ),  which  I  understand,  with  Rosenmuel- 
ler,  to  be   an   idiomatic   phrase,  simply  meaning  eternal. 


Let.  JX.]  in  favour  of  eternal  generation.  129 

This  child  was  to  be  not  onlj  a  Son  and  a  King^  but 
the  mighty  and  eternal  God  ;  i.  e.  in  this  personage,  these 
natures  were  to  be  combined. 

The  same  sentiment  I  take  to  be  expressed  by  Ml- 
cah.  "  Out  of  Bethlehem,"  says  he,  "  shall  issue  (wV2^) 
a  King  over  Israel,  whose  fllXI^I^  issues,  goings  Jorth, 
origines,  are  eternal."  The  latter  part  of  the  verse,  in 
respect  to  form^  is  an  antithetic  paronomasia  of  the  form- 
er. As  if  we  were  to  say,  in  English,  A  ruler  shall  go 
forth  from  Bethlehem,  whose  goings  forth  are  eternal; 
i.  e.  a  ruler  shall  be  born  there,  who  shall  possess  a  na- 
ture that  is  incapable  of  birth  ;  in  other  words,  an  eter- 
nal and  divine  nature. 

Such  is  the  natural  exegesis  of  the  passage,  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  of  Hebrew  parallelism  and  poeti**,  ex- 
pression. But  in  this,  I  find  no  support  for  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  generation.* 

4.  Turretine,  and  most  who  agree  with  him  in  senti- 
ment respecting  the  doctrine  in  question,  deduce  argu- 
ments in  support  of  it,  from  the  epithets  which  are  com- 
bined with  the  word  Son.  These  are  tdiog  own  ;  ay  a-' 
nffiog  beloved  ;  fiovoycvt^g  only  begotten  ;  and  tiqojioioxos 
firstborn,     I  will  now  examine  these  in  their  order. 

1.  Idiog  own.  This  epithet  is  applied  by  the  sacred 
writers,  in  only  one  instance,  to  Christ.  Paul  says,  "  He 
that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for 
us  all,  &;c."  Rom.  8:  32.  In  one  other  case,  the  Jews 
aver,  that  Jesus  "  not  only  profaned  the  Sabbath,  but 
asserted  that  God  was  his  own  father  (^Lt^tov  nan^pa,) 
making  himself  equal  to  God."      John  5:  18.     But  that 

*  What  Turrctine  can  mean,  when,  in  commenting  on  this  verse 
in  Micah,  he  says,  ''  Nee  potuit  [Filius]  prodiisse  a  Patre  nisi  per 
generaiionem  substantialem^'^''  I  will  not  attempt  to  conjecture. 

18 


130  EXAMINATION  OF    ARGUMENTS  [LeT.   IX. 

a  claim  to  equality  ivith  God  is  not  made  out  from  this 
assertion,  bj  anj  force  of  the  word  idios,  is  sufficiently 
plain  from  comparing  the  tenth  chapter  of  this  same 
Evangehst,  (verses  24 — 39  ;)  where  the  Jews  are  de- 
scribed as  having  made  the  same  accusation,  on  the 
ground  that  Ciirist  had  declared  himself  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,  (v.  36,)  or  that  God  was  his  Father,  (v.  29.) 

And  that  no  such  stress  can  be  laid  on  the  word  idiog, 
to  prove  the  "  real  and  substantial  generation  of  the  Lo- 
gos," as  Turretine  lays  upon  it,  is  sufficiently  evident 
from  the  manner  in  which  the  word  is  employed,  in 
other  cases.  Christ  is  said  to  have  entered  the  holy 
place  once  by  his  own  blood,  Heb.  9:  12;  and  to  have 
washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  Rev.  1:5.  In 
these  and  a  multitude  of  other  cases,  where  own  (^k^loq)  is 
used,  it  is  cither  employed  as  an  intensive,  to  add 
force  and  emphasis  to  the  meaning  o[  his,  that,  Sic,  as  his 
own,  their  own,  &lc  ;  or  it  is  placed  in  opposition  to  some- 
thing that  is  strange,  foreign,  or  that  belongs  to  another. 
Thus,  his  own  city  means  the  city  of  which  one  is  a 
native,  or  where  he  habitually  resides,  in  distinction 
from  other  cities.  And  thus,  Christ  entered  into  the 
holy  place  by  his  own  blood,  means  that  he  did  not,  like 
the  Jewish  priests,  enter  in  with  the  blood  of  animals, 
&c. 

It  is  however  the  emphatic  sense  of  own,  perhaps, 
which  the  passage  from  Paul's  Epistle  requires  ;  al- 
though the  sense  is  good  \(  oivn  here  be  opposed  to  that 
which  is  foreign,  or  another's.  The  meaning  then  would 
be,  '  God  did  not  make  atonement  for  sin,  by  exacting 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  or  of  human  victims  ;  but 
he  gave  his  own  Son  to  die  for  us.' 

At  any  rate,  Paul  applies  a  still  stronger  epithet  than 


T.  IX.]     IN  FAVOUR  OP  ETERNAL  GENERATION.  I3l 

i^iog  to  Timothy,  who  stood  in  no  other  relation  to  him, 
than  that  of  one  of  his  converts.  "  To  Timothy  a  genu- 
ine Son  in  the  faith,  yvt^oicp  lexvcp^^''  1  Tim.  1:2;  which,  in 
2  Tim.  1:1,  he  varies,  by  calling  him  my  son. 

But  in  whatever  sense  Christ  is  Son  of  God,  whether 
his  fihation  be  eternal,  or  in  time  he  is  God's  own  Son ; 
and  the  epithet  own  cannot  possibly  have  any  bearing  on 
the  question  of  eternal  generation.  The  Son  of  God,  if 
begotten  yesterday,  would  be  as  truly  God's  own  Son, 
as  if  begotten  from  eternity.  To  call  him  idcog  viog  then, 
determines  nothing  respecting  the  point  in  question. 

2.  AyoiRi^Tog,  beloved,  A  formal  examination  of  this 
really  seems  to  me  needless.  Is  not  Christ  all  perfect, 
lovely,  glorious,  exalted  as  he  is — God's  beloved  Son  ? 
And  God's  beloved  Son  in  a  peculiar  sense  ;  for  the  rea- 
son that  his  character  and  attributes  are  peculiar?  Yet, 
I  could  not  argue  the  peculiarity  of  divine  love  toward 
him,  merely  from  the  fact  that  the  epithet  beloved  is  ap- 
plied to  him.  Daniel  is  not  only  called  beloved,  but  a 
m3.n  greatly  beloved  ;  David  was  a  man  after  God's  own 
heart;  Solomon  was  beloved  of  God ;  the  church  is  his 
beloved;  but  these  are  not  therefore  eternally  begotten. 
It  is  then  the  circumstances  under  which  ayaarfiog  is  ap- 
plied to  Christ,  and  the  manner  of  the  application,  that 
intimate  a  peculiarity  of  meaning  in  his  case.  But  this 
peculiarity  has  no  concern,  nith  any  argument  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation. 

3.  Movoysvt^g^  only  begotten,  I  cannot  help  thinking  it 
somewhat  singular,  that  any  argument  should  ever  have 
been  drawn  from  this  epithet,  to  prove  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son.  Is  not  that  generation  in  the  womb 
of  the  virgin,  by  supernatural  miraculous  power,  and  on 
account  of  which  the  angel  says  he  should  be  called  the 


13^  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

Son  of  God,  the  only  generation  of  the  kind,  which  has 
ever  taken  place  ?  Has  God  any  other  Son,  who  was 
thus  produced  ? 

Or  if  you  understand  the  term  Son  as  characterising 
the  incarnate  Logos,  the  Messiah,  the  supreme  King; 
is  there  more  than  one  such  King  ?  And  is  not  fLioroyevf^g 
the  very  adjunct  which  may  properly  be  connected  with 
vlog^  used  in  cither  of  the  above  senses? 

Here  I  might  stop,  then,  with  having  shewn,  that  in 
whatever  way  you  understand  the  phrase  Son  of  God 
as  applied  to  Christ,  only  begotten  is  strictly  applicable 
to  him.  But  my  examination  of  the  term  fiovoyevi^g  has 
ended  in  the  conviction,  that  as  applied  to  the  Saviour, 
it  is  a  mere  parallelism  of  ayamixog.  It  may  be  proper 
to  state  the  reasons  of  this  conviction. 

In  the  Hellenistic  Greek,  both  ayanf^rog  and  fAovoye- 
1^;;^  correspond  to  the  Hebrew  word  ^^n"^  only  begotten. 
Thus  Gen.  22:  2,  "  Take  now  thy  son,  thine  only  son, 
Hebrew  ^"^H"^,  Sept.  ayam^Tov^  Aquila  (Liovoyevif ;  all  in 
the  same  sense.  So  "l^U^  is  rendered  by  ayam^xog  in 
Gen.  22:12,16.  Jud.  11:^34.  Jer.  6:26.  Amos  8:  10. 
Zech.  12:  10.  Ps.  22:  21.  It  is  thus  too  that  Hesychius 
explains  ayanr^iovy  in  his  Glossary.  Ayocm^iov,  says  he, 
fxovoyev}]y  TteyaQLofxevov,  So  Pollux  ;  "  A  beloved  and  only 
son,  or  a  beloved  daughter,  is  called  fiovoyavt^g^  by  Hesi- 
od."  So  in  Homer's  Iliad,  {^.v.  401)  the  term ayant^iov 
is  explained  by  the  Scholiast,  {noroyev}^. 

As  applied  to  Christ,  we  find  the  epithet  fiovoyevj^g 
used  only  by  John;  a  writer  whose  tender  heart  every 
where  flows  out,  in  epithets  of  endearment.  That  the 
term  indicates  special  endearment  cannot  be  doubted  ; 
nor  can  we  doubt  that  the  Son  of  God  was  specially 
dear  to  the  Father. 


Let.  IX.]        IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  133 

Supported  by  such  authorities,  and  sucli  usnis^e,  I  hes- 
itate not  to  say,  it  is  my  full  belief,  that  fwroyeri^Q  as  ap- 
plied to  the  Saviour  is  merely  a  term  of  special  endear- 
ment But  if  it  be  more;  then,  as  [  have  already  shewn, 
it  applies  to  the  peculiar  and  unique  j^eneration  of  the 
Son,  in  the  womb  of  a  viro-m,  by  divine  power;  or  to 
the  peculiar  and  unique  exaltation  of  the  incarnate  Lo- 
gos. 

4.  llgcoiojoxog  first  born.  This  appellation  has  often 
been  adduced,  to  confirm  or  prove  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
nal o-pneration.  But  it  would  prove  a  great  deal  too 
much,  if  the  term  is  to  be  literally  applied.  Christ  is 
called  the  first  born  of  every  creature,  nQcoroxoxog  naar^g 
xitaecog.  Is  the  difference  then  between  him  and  others, 
only  that  he  was  born  first?  He  is  called  the  first  horn 
among  many  brethren  ;  (Rom.  8:  29)  those  brethren 
then  are  horn  as  well  as  he ;  but  he  is  the  first  in  point 
of  time. 

This  sense  will  not  bear.  We  come,  then,  by  neces- 
sity to  the  figurative  sense  of  the  word;  where  we  find 
the  meaning  to  be,  chief  pre-eminent,  first  in  dignity,  com- 
mand, honour,  S^c  ;  a  very  natural  meaning,  derived  from 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  primogeniture  among  the 
Hebrews.  And  now  we  have  the  sense  of  all  those 
passages,  where  Christ  is  called  the  first  horn  ;  viz,  he 
is  the  head  of  all  creation  ;  he  is  Lord  over  the  church  ; 
he  is  the^r5^  horn  from  the  dead,  i.  e.  the  Lord  of  those 
who  will  die  no  more,  &c.  But  none  of  all  these  mean- 
ings have  any  bearing,  that  I  can  perceive,  on  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  generation, 

5.  The  fifth  argument  of  Turretine  is  drawn  from 
Col.  1:15;  "  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  ;" 
and  from  Heb.  1  :  5,"  Who  being  the  effulgence  [irradia- 


154  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

tion]  of  his  [the  Father's]  glory,  and  the  express  image 
of  his  substance,  &:c." 

As  to  the  first  of  these  passages,  the  context  immedi- 
ately going  before  affords  an  easy  solution  of  the  mean- 
ing. "  In  whom  [Christ]  we  have  redemption  through  his 
blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins  ;  who  is  the  im- 
age, &:c."  Now  who  is  the  image  ?  He  by  iDhose,  blood 
we  have  redemption.  And  who  is  it,  that  shed  his 
blood?"  The  preceding  context  tells  us,  that  it  was 
God^s  dear  Son,  Was  it  tlien  the  eternally  begotten  and 
coequal  Son  that  shed  his  blood  ?  Or  was  it  the  incar- 
nate Logos  i.  e.  the  Messiah,  who  made  atonement  by 
suffering  ? 

In  exactly  the  same  strain  is  the  passage  in  Hebrews. 
"  Who,  (being  the  irradiation  of  his  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  him,"*  and  directing  all  things  by  his  om- 
nipotent control.)  having  made  expiation  by  himself  for 
our  sins,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on 
high." 

Who  then  made  expiation  by  suffering  for  our  sins?     j 
Surely  the  Messiah,  not  the  eternal   Logos.     The  same 
person  then  is  the  irradiation  of  the  Father's  glory,  and 
his  peculiar  image. 

I  have  reviewed  the  arguments,  on  which  Turretine 
depends,  to  prove  the  doctrine  in  question  from  the 
Scriptures.  I  find  in  most  of  them  confirmation  of  an 
opinion  very  diverse  from  his. 

Some  other  arguments  must  be  noticed,  before  I  leave 
the  subject  ;  for  1  would  not  wittingly  leave  any  im- 
portant argument  unexamined,  which  is  brought  to  es- 
tablish the  doctrine  in  question. 

*  Tr]g  V7ToaTUG6(x)g  uvtov  1  take  to  be  simply  a  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  1-5:,  so  often  used  to  designate  him,  himself^  kc. 


Let.  IX.]       IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  135 

Much  reliance  has  been  placed,  on  a  passage  in  Heb. 
1:2;  "By  whom  he  made  the  worlds,"  i.e.  by  the 
Son,  the  Father  made  the  worlds.  Now  if  the  Logos 
was  not  Son  before  the  creation  of  the  worlds,  how  could 
the  Father  make  the  worlds  by  him  ? 

I  am  rather  surprised  that  Turretine  should  not  have 
made  an  argument  of  this  ;  for  it  really  seems  to  me 
much  more  specious,  than  any  which  he  has  produced. 
I  will  not  attempt  to  show  that  the  passage  is  capable 
of  a  different  translation  ;  although  I  might  say  some- 
thing in  behalf  of  this.  For  the  preposition  c)V«,  when 
governing  the  Genitive  as  here,  does  not  always  mean 
hy^  in  the  sense  oi  cause,  or  instrumental  cause,  but  plain- 
ly means,  in  some  cases,  on  account  of.  See  Rom.  5  :  19. 
8:3.  2Cor.  9:13, 14.  So  in  Gen.  8:  21.  12: 13, 16,  in  the 
Septuagint,  being  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  ^^^^'^l  he- 
cause  of,  on  account  of  So  also  in  Schneider's  excellent 
Lexicon,  under  No.  2  of  dm,  he  gives  wegen,  on  account 
of  It  might  be  said  too,  since  the  tenth  verse  describes 
the  creative  power  of  Christ  as  Jehovah,  that  the 
repetition  of  the  same  sentiment  in  the  verse  in  question 
is  rather  improbable  ;  ai-d  that  a  more  probable  version 
of  it  therefore  is,  "  on  account  of  whom,  he  created  the 
worlds;"  which  would  comport  very  well  with  the  ele- 
vation and  glory  of  the  Mossiah,  as  displayed  in  the  rest 
of  the  chapter. 

But  omitting  to  urge  this,  I  am  content  to  take  our 
Version  as  it  stands,  acknowledging  that  it  accords  well 
with  the  predominant  meaning  of  dia,  when  placed  be- 
fore the  Genitive.  Does  the  apostle,  then,  mean  to  as- 
sert or  even  to  imply  the  fact  of  eternal  generation,  or 
eternal  Sonship  ? 

The  answer  to  this  question  brings  me  to  the  consid- 


136  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS         [LeT.  IX. 

eration  of  a  special  principle,  in  regard  to  the  appella- 
tions occasionally  given  to  the  Messiah.  It  is  this,  that 
designations  originally  descriptive  merely  of  quality, 
rank,  &;c,  in  process  of  time,  by  frequent  usage,  become 
proper  names,  and  are  very  commonly  substituted  for 
them,  so  as  to  be  descriptive  of  the  whole  person,  or 
being.  Such  is  the  case  with  several  of  the  names  giv- 
en to  Christ.  The  very  appellation  Christ,  signifies 
anointed ;  6  ^pioTog  the  anointed  one,  the  king,  the  special 
supreme  ruler  of  God's  people.  Yet  this  name,  (the 
same  as  Messiah,  being  merely  a  Greek  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  H'^'ipS)  originally  applicable  only  to  the  incar- 
nate Logos,  or  the  Logos  as  dwelling  among  men,  and 
afterwards  reigning  over  them  in  a  nature  like  theirs,  is 
used  also  to  describe  either  part  of  this  compound  per- 
son ;  the  human  nature,  or  the  divine.  '•  Of  whom,  as 
concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever."  Here  Christ  is  used  to  designate  both 
the  human  and  divine  natures.  So  the  Spirit,  which 
wrought  in  the  ancient  Jewish  prophets,  is  called  the 
spirit  of  Christ,  1  Pet.  1:  11;  although  strictly  speak- 
ing, Christ  did  not  appear  until  many  centuries  after- 
wards. On  the  other  hand,  the  word  Christ  designates 
the  human  nature  in  countless  instances.  When  it  is  j 
said  that  Christ  was  born,  that  he  laboured,  suffered,  ' 
died,  rose  again,  &:c,  all  this  evidently  pertains  of  neces- 
sity to  that  nature,  which  was  capable  of  these  changes,  j 
In  nearly  all  the  cases  that  occur  of  the  use  of  the  word, 
respect  is  had  entirely  to  his  mediatorial  state,  i.  e.  either 
to  the  humble,  or  to  the  exalted  part  of  it.  But,  as  the 
instances  above  produced  show,  ihe  word  in  process  of 
time  became  a  proper  name,  which  was  ca[)abie  of  de- 
scribing both  natures;  and  was  occasionally  used,  ulien 
the  Saviour  is  spoken  of  as  divine  and  nut  as  human. 


Let.  IX.]         IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation,  137 

Such  is  the  case  with  another  term  of  designation, 
which  the  Saviour  applied  to  hiaiself  more  frequently 
than  any  other;  I  mean  Son  of  7nan.  According  to 
the  idiom  of  the  Shemltish  languages,  Son  of  man  means 
simply  man^  a  man  descended  from  human  parents.  But 
as  applied  to  the  Saviour,  it  means,  most  probably,  the 
seed  of  the  woman  who  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head  ; 
the  seed  promised  to  Abraham  ;  the  son  who  was  pro- 
mised to  David,  as  the  heir  of  his  throne  ;  the  son  who  was 
to  be  born  of  the  virgin^  whose  name  was  to  be  Wonder- 
ful, &c.  In  all  these  promises,  there  is  special  refer- 
ence to  that  nature,  which  was  to  be  born  or  generated. 
But  notwithstanding  the  evident  import  of  the  title  Son 
of  man  ^  according  to  its  original  use;  yet  it  \?>  sometimes 
employed  in  such  a  sense,  as  necessarily  to  designate  a 
nature  preceding  the  human  one,  i.  e.  a  nature  divine. 
"  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up, 
where  he  was  before  ?"  John  6:  62.  "  The  Father  hath 
given  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself  (1.  e.  to  call  the 
dead  from  their  graves,  to  give  life  to  the  dead,  com  p. 
vs.  28,  29  ;)  and  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute 
judgment  also,  because  he  is  the  Son  of  man^  John  5: 
26,  27. 

Surely  as  Son  of  man,  or  a  descendant  of  Mary,  he 
had  not  lived  in  heaven  before  his  birth ;  nor  simply  as 
such  a  personage,  is  judgment  committed  to  him,  and  the 
power  of  raising  the  dead.  It  was  a  more  exalted  na- 
ture which  dwelt  in  heaven,  before  the  birth  of  Jesus  ; 
and  it  was  for  a  higher  reason  than  that  Jesus  was  of 
human  origin,  that  he  is  enabled  to  raise  the  dead,  and 
is  commissioned  to  judge  the  world. 

Now  just  what  happens  In  respect  to  the  titles  Christ 
and  Son  of  man,  happens  in  regard  to  the  title  Son  of 
19 


138  EXAMINATION  OP  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

God.  It  desl^ates  the  Messiah,  the  incarnate  Lo^os, 
in  its  proper  and  original  use  as  applied  to  Christ.  But 
in  after  times,  it  was  occasionally  used  to  describe  either 
nature.  So  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  said, 
"They  crucify  to  themselves  the  Son  of  God  afresh." 
Heb.  6.  And  in  Acts  3:26,  Peter  speaks  of  God's  hav- 
ing raised  up  his  Son.  Many  other  passages  of  the  same 
tenor  might  easily  be  produced,  if  it  were  necessary,  in 
order  to  show  that  the  term  Son  is  occasionally  employ- 
ed to  designate  only  the  human  nature  of  Christ ;  for 
surely  the  divine  nature  was  neither  crucified  nor  rais- 
ed up. 

In  a  similar  way,  also,  the  term  Son  of  God  is  em- 
ployed to  indicate  the  divine  nature  ;  as  in  the  passage  in 
question.  The  sentiment  is,  that  the  Logos  created  the 
world ;  and  so  says  John,  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  gos- 
pel.  That  God  created  the  world  by  the  Logos  imports, 
I  think  almost  necessarily,  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead. 
Does  not  John  imply  the  same  when  he  says  the  Logos 
was  with  God?  But  I  shall  not  attempt  to  describe  the 
nature  of  this  distinction.  The  form  of  expression,  which 
we  are  examining,  does  not  present  any  more  real  diffi- 
culty than  is  presented  when  Moses  says,  ''Jehovah 
rained  from  Jehovah  fire  and  brimstone  upon  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha,  &c."  And  at  most,  the  use  of  the  term  Son 
here  would  no  more  prove  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
divine  nature,  than  the  use  of  the  term  Son  of  man  would 
prove  that  Christ  had  been  Son  of  man  in  his  pre-exist- 
ent  state.  (See  John  6:  62.) 

Indeed  the  very  first  verse  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, seems  pretty  plainly  to  intimate,  that  the  specu- 
lations of  the  Fathers,  about  the  manifestations  of  the 
Son  of  God  to  the  ancient  patriarchs  and  prophets,  are 


Let.  IX.]       IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation,  139 

not  well  grounded  ;  although  these  sy)eculations  are  still 
very  common  among  Christians.  "God,  who  at  sundry 
times  and  in  divers  ma/i/ier5,  spake  to  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  to  us  by  his 
Son.^^  And  on  the  ground,  that  these  last  days  enjoy 
the  preeminence  of  being  addressed  by  the  Son^  the  apos- 
tle urges  the  danger  of  more  severe  condemnation,  in 
case  the  word  spoken  is  rejected  ;  Chap.  2:  1 — 4.  Does 
this  seem  to  recognize  the  fact,  that  the  Son  of  God 
addressed  the  ancients  ?  That  the  Logos  inspired  the 
prophets,  and  appeared  to  the  patriarchs,  may  be  true, 
(though  I  do  not  assert  it ;)  but  to  later  times  was  reserv- 
ed the  peculiar  privilege  of  being  addressed  by  the  Son 
of  God,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and 
truth. 

In  the  succeeding  context,  moreover,  Paul  says  ; 
"  When  he  bringeth  his  first  begotten  into  the  world, 
he  saiuh.  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  From 
what  Scripture  the  apostle  selected  this  passage,  cannot 
now  be  shewn,  if  the  quotation  is  designed  to  be  a  ver- 
bal one.  No  such  words  are  now  extant  in  any  part  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures;  and  although  in  the  Septuagint 
Deut.  32:  43,  words  nearly  the  same  in  sound  occur,  the 
sense  appears  to  be  very  different  from  that  given  by 
the  apostle.  Be  this  as  it  may  ;  the  introduction  of  the 
first  begotten  into  the  world,  whether  it  refer  to  his 
birth,  or  his  official  introduction,  necessarily  imports  a 
time  subsequent  to  the  formation  of  tijc  angels,  who, 
as  already  existing,  are  commanded  to  worship  him.  If 
therefore  it  apply  at  all  to  the  point  in  question,  it  is 
clearly  against  the  doctrine  o[  eternal  generation. 

In  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
is  a  passage,  which  has  appeared  to  some,  to  import  that 


140  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

the  title  Son  is  descriptive  of  the  original  nature,  and 
not  the  official  character  of  Christ.  The  writer  repre- 
sents Moses  as  entrusted  with  the  house  or  family  of 
God,  as  his  servant,  in  order  to  instruct  them.  Bat 
Christ  possessed  authority  over  this  house  as  B.Son  ;  i.  e. 
as  they  explain  it,  as  one  who  inherits ; — who  has  a  su- 
perior claim  by  virtue  of  his  derivation. 

But  the  question,  which  the  Apostle  is  endeavouring 
to  illustrate  here,  is  not  concerning  the  origin  of  Moses 
and  of  Christ.  The  inquiry  is  not.  Who  possesses  a  dig- 
nity by  derivation^  which  is  superior.  It  is  simply  wheth- 
er Moses  and  Christ  were  at  the  head  of  their  respec- 
tive dispensations,'in  the  same  capacity;  and  so  wheth- 
er they  are  officially  entitled  to  equal  honour  and  re- 
spect. Moses,  says  the  apostle,  was  entrusted  with  his 
house,  simply  as  a  servant;  he  was,  in  no  sense  rccd 
lord  over  it,  but  only  the  steward  of  another.  But 
Christ  was  Lord  over  his  house  ;  he  was  supreme  arbi- 
ter, governor,  judge  ;  he  acted  not  in  a  mere  subservient 
capacity,  but  as  a  Son,  (who  is  virtual  owner  of  the  pa- 
ternal state,)  he  claimed  and  exercised  dominion  over  it. 

Exactly  in  conformity  with  this,  is  the  sentiment  of 
the  same  writer,  in  Chap.  1:2  ;  which  asserts  that  God 
has  constituted  the  Son  -nAtj^ovofjiov  navrcov  heir  of  the 
universe^  i.  e.  lord,  possessor  of  it.  Now  here  is  evidently 
the  same  property  in  the  universe,  which  is  described  in 
Chap,  iii,  where  his  possession  is  represented  as  that 
of  a  Son.  But  could  and  did  God  constitute  the  eter- 
nal and  necessarily  begotten  and  coequal  Son,  the  pos- 
sessor of  the  Universe  ?  Or  was  this  done,  when 
the  Messiah  was  exalted  to  the  throne  of  universal  do- 
minion ? 

There  is  still  another  class  of  passages  that  often  oc- 


Let.  IX.]        IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  141 

cur,  in  which  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  God's  sending 
his  Son  into  the  world;  giving  his  Son  for  us  ;  sending 
forth  his  Son  made  under  the  law,  &c  ;  and  Christ  is  re- 
presented as  coming  from  God,  coming  into  the  world, 
Sic.  Passages  of  this  class,  I  apprehend,  produce  more 
effect  upon  the  belief  of  a  common  reader  of  the  bible, 
in  respect  to  the  doctrine  in  question,  than  almost  any 
other;  for  to  one  unacquainted  with  the  original  idiom 
of  the  Scriptures,  such  passages  seem  to  import  that 
Christ  was  Son.  before  he  came  into  the  world,  i.  e.  as 
they  understand  it,  before  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.  On  this  account,  I  must  take  special  notice  of 
this  class  of  texts. 

First,  then,  I  would  observe,  that  one  general  objec- 
tion lies  against  interpreting  any  of  these  texts  in  the 
manner  described  ;  for  if  filiation  be  understood  of  the 
Logos  himself,  it  would  imply,  of  course,  that  he  had 
been  twice  Son — Son  in  his  divine  nature,  and  Son  in  his 
human  nature  ;  a  doctrine  which,  although  believed  by 
some  of  the  Fathers,  and  advocated  in  this  form,  is  not, 
so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  taught  in  any  part  of  the  Bible. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  suppose  that  Christ  is  call- 
ed Son,  as  it  were  in  the  literal  sense,  on  account  of  his 
supernatural  birth  ;  and  Son  in  a  figurative  sense  on  ac- 
count of  his  office  ;  this  involves  nothing  of  the  difficul- 
ties of  two  literal  filiations ;  a  doctrine  which,  I  cannot 
think,  will  now  be  seriously  defended. 

But  to  review  some  of  the  passages  in  question.  John 
3:  16,  "God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son."  The  sense  of  this  passage,  I  take  not 
to  be,  "  He  sent  him  to  men  ;"  or,  "  He  gave  him  to 
men  ;"  for  then  after  the  verb  edcoxev^  it  would  have  been 
necessary  to  insert  avtcp  or  xoa/bKp,  to  designate  the  per- 


142  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

Sons  for  whose  benefit  the  gift  was  made.  The  mean- 
ing is,  "  God  gave  up  his  Son  to  death  on  acconnt  of 
men.  Conip.  Luke  22:  19.  Gal.  1:4.  Rom.  8:32.  John 
6:  31.     But  it  was  not  an  eternal  Son,  who  died  for  men. 

If  any,  however,  are  disposed  to  call  in  question  the 
interpretation  just  given;  no  advantage  can  be  gained 
for  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  by  denying  it. 
That  God  gave  his  Son  for  the  salvation  of  men,  is  ade- 
quately explained  by  the  fact,  that  the  Logos  became 
incarnate  ;  that  Jesus  the  Saviour  was  born,  lived,  suf- 
fered, and  died  for  men.  God  did  indeed  give  his  Son 
for  our  salvation. 

In  verse  17,  however,  we  have  the  formula  in  its  full 
strength,  on  which  the  argument  for  eternal  filiation  is 
built.  "  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world,  to  con- 
demn the  world,  &c."  The  sending  of  the  Son  into  the 
world,  and  his  coming  into  the  world  are  correlate  terms, 
both  having  reference  to  the  same  fact,  namely  the  divine 
mission  of  Christ;  the  one  designating  the  part  which 
God  performed  in  respect  to  this  mission  ;  the  other 
the  part  performed  by  the  Son.  The  question  in  both 
of  these  cases  is,  Does  the  action  o[  sending  the  Son  in- 
to the  worlds  or  of  the  Son'^s  coming  into  the  world  relate 
to  the  birth  of  the  Christ,  or  to  his  mediatorial  ojice 
amono;  men?  If  the  former,  it  is  possible  that  texts  of 
this  class  may  imj)ly  a  filiation  previous  to  his  birth  of 
Mary  ;  if  the  latter,  then  nothing  is  added  to  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation. 
It  is  said,  John  1  :  9,  that  the  Logos  "  was  the  true  light, 
which  coming  into  the  world  enlighteneth  every  man." 
This  form  of  expression,  in  general,  seems  more  favor- 
able to  the  doctrine  which  I  am  opposing,  than  the  one 
in  John  3:17,  God  sent — his  Son, 


Let.  IX.]       IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  143 

I  will  not  deny,  that  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  or  rather 
in  the  Rabbinical,  the  phrase  to  come  into  the  world  fre- 
quently has  reference  to  the  birth  of  men.  iDxI^D  i^lS 
is  said  of  men,  who  enter  upon  the  stage  of  terrestrial 
existence.  But  in  the  New  Testament,  the  same  phrase, 
or  substantially  the  same,  is  often  used  in  the  sense  of 
entering  upon  the  duties  of  any  public  office^  specially  the  pro- 
phetic office.  Thus  in  John  1  :  6,  it  is  said  of  John  Bap- 
tist, "  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God ;  (v.  7)  The 
same  came  to  testify,  &;c."  So  in  Matt.  11:  18,  it  is 
said  of  the  same  John ;  "  He  came  neither  eating,  nor 
drinking,  &c  ;"  and  in  v.  14,  "This  is  Elijah,  who  was 
to  come,  6pX€a&ai,^^  In  John  7  :  28,  Jesus  says,  "  I  came 
not  of  myself,  but  he  who  is  worthy  of  credit  sent  me  ;" 
in  which,  most  evidently  his  mission  as  Messiah,  and  not 
his  birth  is   referred  to.     So  in   John  5  :  43,  '^  I   have 

come  in  my  father's  name, if  another  come  in  his  own 

name,  &c."  Hence  6  cp/o^f^o^  was  a  common  title 
bestowed  by  the  Jews  on  the  Messiah  ;  or  its  equiva- 
lent, 6  eX{>cov.  Matt.  3:11.  1  John  5  :  6.  But  the  pas- 
sage, which  of  all  makes  it  most  clear  what  coming  into 
the  icorld  means  as  applied  by  Jehovah  to  the  Messiah, 
is  found  in  John's  Gospel,  ch.  18:  37,  "  Then  said  Pilate 
to  him,  Art  thou  a  King?  Jesus  replied,  it  is  as  thou 
sayest.  I  am  a  King.  For  this  end  was  I  born  ;  and 
for  this  purpose  came  I  into  the  worlds  in  order  that  I 
might  publish  the  truth."  The  latter  clause,  appended 
to  coming  into  the  world  in  order  to  show  the  object  of 
his  public  appearance,  makes  it  absolutely  necessary  to 
distinguish  between  his  birth  and  his  coming  into  the 
world. 

Rabbinic  usage,  also,  justifies  this  explanation,  l^^ni^  D"! 
the  master  has  come,  means  that  he  teaches,  or  is  teaching. 


144  EXAMINATION  OF    ARGUMENTS  [LeT.   IX- 

One  other  consideration  must  not  be  omitted.  If  the 
hirth  of  Jesus  be  meant  here,  by  his  coming  into  the  worlds 
in  what  sense  can  it  be  said  that  he  was  the  true  light 
((pcog  aAr^&tvov)  that  enlightencth  every  man  ?  Was  he 
indeed  so  by  his  simple  birth,  and  his  thirty  years  resi- 
dence In  private  life,  and  in  obscurity?  Or  was  he  the 
true  light  then,  and  only  then,  when  he  came  Into  the 
world  so  as  to  become  the  teacher  of  mankind  ? 

Uniting  all  these  considerations,  the  proof  becomes, 
to  my  mind,  irresistible,  that  the  Son's  coming  into  the 
worlds  and  being  sent  into  the  worlds  relates  to  his  pub- 
lic and  prophetic  office,  and  not  to  his  birth. 

In  Rom.  8:  3,  God's  sending  his  Son  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  men,  is  so  plainly  an  instance  which  relates  to  the 
incarnate  condition  of  Christ,  that  comment  is  unnecessa- 
ry. In  Rom.  8:  23,  "  God  give  up  his  Son  for  us  all,"  is  a 
clear  case  of  devoting  him  to  an  expiatory  death;  which 
was  not  suffered  by  a  nature  immutable  and  divine. 

In  Gal.  4:  4,  it  is  said,  "God  sent  forth,  [£h,a7ieaTei^ev) 
his  Son,  born  of  a  woman,  and  born  under  the  law,  in 
order  that  he  might  redeem.  &c."  Here  it  is  the  Son 
horn  of  a  woman^  and  born  under  the  law,  who  is  sent  forth, 
and  who  redeems;  not  a  Son  eternally  begotten. 

In  Acts  3:  215,  Peter  speaks  of  God's  sending  his  Son, 
after  he  had  raised  him  from  the  dead.  But  what  Son 
died;  and  what  Son  was  raised  from  the  dead  ? 

In  1  John  4 : 9,  it  is  said,  "  God  sent  his  only  begotten 
Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  by  him  ;"  and  in 
the  next  verse,  "  He  sent  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  us ;"  and  in  v.  14,  "The  Father  sent  his 
Son,  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world."  Comment  on  these 
verges  is  unnecessary,  after  what  has  been  already  ex- 
hibited, in  respect  to  the  idiom  of  John. 


Let.  IX.]  IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  H3 

These  passages  exhibit^  as  I  believe,  all  the  varieties 
of  the  phraseology  in  question.  If  there  be  any  that 
have  escaped  my  notice,  I  think  they  will  present  no 
more  difficulty,  than  those  which  have  already  been  ex- 
amined. 

Two  passages  of  a  peculiar  complexion,  in  the  Gospel 
of  John,  remain  yet  to  be  examined.  John  5:  IS,  it  is 
said,  "  The  Jews  souglit  to  kill  him  (Christ)  because  he 
not  only  violated  the  Sabbath,  but  said  that  God  was  his 
own  father,  making  himself  equal  to  God." 

The  first  question  that  arises  here,  is,  Does  the  Evan- 
gelist mean  to  aver,  that  saying  God  was  his  own  Fa- 
ther, was  making  himself  equal  to  God  ?  Or  does  he 
mean  to  state  this,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  Jews  from 
the  words  of  Jesus  ?  Most  evidently  the  latter;  for  in  the 
very  clause  before,  we  find  "  because  that  he  (Christ) 
profaned  the  Sabbath,"  which  surely  we  are  not  to  un- 
derstand as  the  allegation  of  the  Evangelist,  but  of  the 
Jews. 

The  Jews,  then,  said  that  Christ  made  himself  equal 
to  God,  by  asserting  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  But 
did  the  Jews,  in  their  zeal  to  ensnare  the  Saviour  by  his 
language,  and  in  their  bitter  persecuting  fury,  always 
act  the  part  of  candor,  in  deducing  conclusions  from 
what  he  said?  Nothing  can  be  more  unsafe,  than  to 
trust  to  such  expositors  of  the  Saviour's  words. 

In  the  very  case  under  consideration,  the  context  (v. 
16)  informs  us,  that  the  Jews  "persecuted  Jesus  and 
sought  to  kill  him,"  because  he  had  healed  the  sick  man 
at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  on  the  Sabbath.  "Jesus  repli- 
ed, My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.  On  this 
account  the  Jews  souo:ht  still  more  to  kill  liim,  because 
20 


146  EXAMINATION  OP  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.   IX. 

he  not  only  profaned  the  sabbath,  but  said  that  God  was 
his  own  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God." 

Observe  now,  how  they  pervert  the  expression  Tny  fa- 
ther^ so  as  to  make  the  intensive  accusation,  "  Said  that 
God  was  his  own  Father."  And  what  follows?  Why  that 
if  he  said  God  was  his  own  Father,  he  claimed  a  spe- 
ciality  ofSonship,  which  was  supernatural  ;  and  therefore 
made  himself  equal  to  God. 

The  reply  of  Jesus  to  this  embittered  accusation  is 
such  as  was  calculated  to  abate  the  force  of  that  con- 
clusion, which  they  had  drawn  from  his  calling  God  his 
Father,  "Jesus  answered,  I  solemnly  assure  you,  the 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  but  what  the  Father 
does."  (v.  19)  That  is,  the  appellation  Son  of  God  does 
not  mean,  of  course,  as  you  have  interpreted  it,  a  claim 
to  full  equality  with  God,  you  deduce  more  from  my 
words  than  they  will  bear.  Your  accusation  of  blasphe- 
my is  not  well  grounded. 

That  the  nature  of  this  reply  has  been  correctly  re- 
presented here,  is  very  strongly  confirmed  by  a  similar 
passage  in  John  10:  33 — 39. 

The  Jews  had  taken  up  stones  to  cast  at  Jesus,  be- 
cause he  had  called  God  his  Father.  Jesus  inquired 
what  reason  they  had  for  doing  so?  They  replied,"  be- 
cause that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God.  Je- 
sus answered.  Is  it  not  written  in  your  Law,  I  have  said, 
ye  are  gods?  Now  if  those  are  called ^0^5,  to  whom  the 
word  of  God  was  addressed,  (and  the  Scriptures  cannot 
be  disannulled,)  Say  ye  of  him  whom  the  Father  hath 
consecrated  and  sent  into  the  world.  Thou  blasphemest, 
because  I  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God  T'' 

That  is  ;  "  If  princes,  who  were  addressed  in  the 
82d   Psalm,  were  called  gods^  by  the  inspired  writer, 


Let.  IX.]       IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  147 

(and  surelj  you  will  not  call  in  question  the  propri- 
ety of  what  is  contained  in  your  own  Scriptures  ;)  is  it 
blasphemy  for  me,  who  have  been  consecrated  by  most 
special  acts  on  the  part  of  God  the  Father  to  the  duties 
of  my  office,  and  sent  forth  among  men  to  fulfil  them,  as 
the  Messiah,  the  great  Prophet  who  was  to  be  raised  up 
among  you  ; — is  it  blasphemy  for  me,  to  call  myself  the 
Son  of  God  T^  In  other  words;  If  worldly  rulers  and 
Kings  are  called  gods,  with  propriety  called  so,  is  it  then 
blasphemous  for  me,  who  am  King  of  kings,  and  Lord 
of  lords,  the  Messiah  of  whom  all  the  prophets  have 
spoken  such  great  things,  to  call  myself  the  Son  of  God  ^ 
Surely  I  may,  without  any  blasphemy,  ascribe  to  my- 
self a  title  lower  than  that  which  the  Scripture  bestows 
upon  them  ? 

It  is  very  evident,  in  this  case,  as  in  the  parallel  one  al- 
ready noticed,  that  the  simple  design  of  Jesus,  in  his  an- 
swer, is  to  repel  the  unjust  accusation  of  the  Jews  ;  un- 
just, because  that  calling  God  his  Father  gave  them  no 
ground  to  draw  the  conclusions  which  they  did.  By 
giving  himself  the  title  Son  of  God,  he  did  not,  according 
to  the  usus  loqnendi  of  the  Jews,  expose  himself  to  any 
such  conclusions  as  his  malignant  accusers  drew  from 
it.  Hence  in  both  cases,  he  repels  the  accusation,  by  al- 
leging that  they  have  deduced  more  from  his  words, 
than  they  had  any  right  to  do  ;  that  if  rulers  may  be 
called  gods,  with  more  propriety  still  may  he  appropri- 
ate to  himself  the  title.  Son  of  God. 

In  fact,  the  Jews  were  not  offended  that  the  title  Son 
of  God  should  be  given  to  the  Messiah.  They  surely 
expected  this  ;  as  appears  from  the  manner  in  which 
they  understood  the  passages  in  the  second  Psalm,  in 
2  Sam.  7  :  12 — 14,  and  in  the  89th  P:jalm ;  for  they  con- 


148  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

strued  these  as  predictions  of  the  Messiah.  But  they 
-were  offended,  that  a  Galilean,  a  person  of  obscure 
birth,  who  originated  from  a  despised  village,  and  was 
of  a  humble  appearance,  who  rejected  all  claims  to 
worldly  splendor  and  power,  and  submitted  to  the  Roman 
despotism  which  oppressed  his  country,  should  arrogate 
to  himself  the  titles  and  honors  of  the  Messiah. — This 
was  what  they  could  not  endure.  Their  malignity  to- 
wards Jesus,  on  account  of  their  disappointed  worldly 
hopes,  was  so  great,  that  it  exhibited  itself  in  every 
shape  ;  and  in  no  way  more  frequently,  than  in  endea- 
vouring to  entrap  him  in  his  words,  and  to  deduce  from 
them  matter  of  accusation.  Nothing  then,  can  be  more 
hazardous  to  sound  interpretation,  than  assuming  the 
position,  that  they  construed  the  language  of  Jesus  in  a 
right  and  candid  manner. 

In  aiiswering  them,,  and  repelling  the  force  of  their 
accusations,  I  regard  the  Saviour  as  neither  renouncing 
nor  asserting  his  proper  divinity.  He  simply  used  such 
arguments  as  were  founded  in  truth,  and  which  repelled 
the  attacks  of  his  adversaries.  Farther  than  this  pru- 
dence w^ould  not  permit  hira  to  go,  at  such  a  time.  If 
the  Jews  were  so  violently  enraged,  because  he  had 
claimed  the  character  and  name  of  the  Messiah,  as 
exhibited  in  their  Scriptures  ;  would  they  have  borne 
with  his  advancing  claims  to  a  truly  divine  character;  or 
were  they  in  a  condition  to  hear  these  claims  advanced, 
and  to  examine  them  with  candour.^ 

Is  it  probable  too  that  Jesus,  who  so  often  exhibited 
himself  as  a  preacher  of  truth  not  only  forcible,  but  well 
timed  and  exactly  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  his 
hearers;  who  so  frequently  charged  his  Apostles  not  to 
publish  among  the  Jews  that  he  was  the  Christ ;  and  so 


Let.  IX.]       IN  TAvouR  of  eternal  generation.  149 

frequently  enjoined  upon  those  whom  he  had  healed  of 
distressing  maladies,  that  they  should  not  make  him 
known;  and  this  because  of  some  peculiar  prejudice 
among  the  Jews  at  that  time  against  him,  or  special  ex- 
asperation of  mind  towards  him,  so  that  they  were  not 
In  a  condition  to  hear  and  candidly  examine  the  declara- 
tion that  he  was   the  true   Messiah  ; is  it  probable, 

that  Jesus  would  have  then  produced  his  most  exalted 
claims  before  the  Jews,  when  they  were  so  much  enrag- 
ed, as  they  plainly  were,  in  each  of  the  cases  which  we 
have  just  been  considering  ?  The  answer,  to  every  one 
who  well  understands  the  character  and  conduct  of  the 
Saviour  during  his  mission  among  the  Jews,  cannot  be 
difficult. 

But  there  is  another  circumstance,  in  the  passage  from 
John  X,  which  must  not  be  passed  in  silence.  This  is, 
that  the  reason  which  Jesus  gives  why  it  was  pro[)er  for 
him  to  call  himself  the  Son  of  God,  is,  that  "  the  Father 
had  consecrated  him,  and  sent  him  upon  his  mission;" 
i.  e.  the  Father  had  consecrated  him  to  the  office  of 
Messiah,  and  had  sent  him  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  it.  But 
this  Is  surely  a  very  different  reason  from  that  which  the 
Jews  assigned;  and  very  different  from  his  being  called 
Son,  because  he  was  eternally  and  necessarily  begotten. 

One  other  argument  employed  to  defend  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  generation,  but  not  drawn  immediately  from 
the  Scriptures,  I  must  not  omit  to  notice.  In  substance  It 
is  this.  ''''Father  is  the  distinctive  title  of  the  first  Person 
in  the  Trinity,  as  such;  consequently  the  correlative 
title  of  Son  seems  to  be  called  for  by  the  second  per- 
son 05  such.  And  unless  the  second  person  of  the  Trin- 
ity be  distinguished  by  such  a  title,  by  what  appropri- 
ate name  are  we  to  call  him  ?" 


150  EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENTS  [LeT.  IX. 

The  first  part  of  this  argument,  if  I  rightly  under- 
stand it,  is  a  petitio  principii  in  respect  to  the  point  in 
question.  Is  God  the  Father  so  called  in  respect  to  his 
relation  to  the  other  persons  of  the  Godhead,  or,  if  you 
please,  to  the  eternal  Son;  or  is  he  styled  Father,  on 
account  of  his  relation  to  his  creatures,  and  to  the  Son 
supernaturally  conceived  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  and 
exalted  to  the  Messiah's  throne  ?  Here  is  surely  a 
question ;  the  answer  to  which  cannot  be  assumed,  but 
must  be  supported  by  arguments. 

On  p.  84,  you  have  said,  very  justly,  that  "  the  kind 
of  distinction  expressed  by  the  word  person  in  the  God- 
head— we  do  not  know ;  and  that  it  is  not  explained  in 
the  Scriptures."  How  then  can  it  be  said,  (as  in  p.  90)  that 
Father  is  the  distinctive  title  of  the  first  person  in  the 
Trinity,  as  such?  If  we  neither  know  what  the  distinc- 
tion is,  nor  have  it  explained  by  the  Scriptures,  how  can 
we  affirm,  that  the  terms  Father  and  Son  are  used  as 
a  characteristic  designation  of  original  relations  in  the 
Godhead.  The  Scripture  that  would  support  this,  must 
be  the  Scripture  which  would  prove  the  Son  to  have 
been  eternally  generated  ;  and  as  I  have  already  exam- 
ined this  subject,  it  would  be  improper  for  me  to  repeat 
my  views  of  it  in  this  place. 

There  is  surely  no  more  necessity  of  supposing  that 
God  always  existed  as  a  Father,  than  that  he  always  ex- 
isted as  a  Creator,  or  Governor.  Surely  he  was  not  a 
creator  before  he  created  ;  nor  a  governor  before  he 
had  subjects.  Nor  is  it  any  more  congruous,  to  sup- 
pose that  he  was  a  Father  before  he  had  a  Son.  The 
question  then  returns  ;  When  was  the  Son,  as  such, 
(not  as  Logos  but  as  Son)  generated }  To  assume, 
that  it  was  from  eternity,  and  that  Father  expresses 
eternal  relation,  is  therefore  petitio  principii. 


Let.  IX.]     IN  FAVOUR  OF  ETERNAL  GENERATION.  151 

On  the  other  hand ;  if  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  words,  which  designate  the  distinctions  of  the  God- 
head as  manifested  to  ks  in  the  economy  of  redemption, 
(which  after  the  preceding  investigation  I  cannot  doubt;) 
and  are  not  intended  to  mark  the  eternal  relations  of 
the  Godhead,  as  they  are  in  themselves,  and  in  respect 
to  each  other;  then  we  may  easily  account  for  these 
designations,  without  being  obliged  at  all  to  recur  to  the 
supposition,  which  you  seem  to  think  inevitable. 

As  to  the  rest  of  the  difficulty  proposed  by  the  argu- 
ment ;  no  great  effort  surely  could  be  necessary  to  sub- 
stitute other  names  for  those  of  Father  and  Son,  if  it 
were  expedient.  Doubtless  it  is  not  expedient ;  for 
shall  not  Christians  use,  and  delight  to  use,  those  appel- 
lations, by  which  God,  in  the  economy  of  redemption, 
has  revealed  himself  to  us.^*  And  may  they  not  view 
them,  (the  names  and  the  relations  revealed  to  us,  not 
the  actual  distinctions  of  the  Godhead)  as  springing  out 
of  the  economy  of  redemption  ?  I  see  no  more  difficul- 
ty in  it,  than  in  supposing  that  the  name  Creator  sprung 
from  the  act  of  Creation  ;  or  Lord  from  the  act  of  gov- 
erning all  things  created. 

But  while  I  believe  this,  I  have  no  imaginable  objec- 
tion to  speaking  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  in  such 
a  way  now,  as  to  designate  the  distinctions  of  the  God- 
head thereby.  My  reason  is,  that  they  have  become, 
hy  usage,  proper  names  ;  and  therefore  no  objection  can 
lie  against  such  usage.  But  when  the  inquiry  is,  wheth- 
er these  names  originally  came  from  internal  distinctions 
in  the  Godhead,  or  from  the  manner  in  which  the  God- 
head is  revealed  to  us  in  the  economy  of  redemption, 
something  more  than  a  popular  view  of  the  names  be- 
comes proper. 


152  EXAMINATION  OF   ARGUMENTS  [LeT,  JX, 

But  to  the  question,  What  title  distinguishes  the  sec- 
ond person  of  the  Trinity  as  such,  (i.  e.  as  the  Godhead 
is  in  itselQ  an  answer  may  surely  be  given  ;  and  a  Scrip- 
tural one  too.  John  tells  us  that  the  Logos  was  in  the 
heginning,  and  loas  God ;  and  that  when  he  became  flesh, 
we  beheld  the  glory  of  the  Only  Begotten.  Here  then 
is  a  name,  for  the  second  distinction  of  the  Trinity  as 
such,  which  is  of  apostolic  authority — of  inspired  origin. 

After  all,  it  seems  to  me  that  things  rather  than 
names,  are  the  principal  subject  of  our  inquiry.  If  I 
might  insist  on  names,  I  would  ask,  how  can  Christ  be 
called  the  everlasting  Father,  as  he  is  by  Isaiah  ?  How 
can  the  Son  be  the  Father  ?  But  in  doing  this,  I  should 
think  myself  employed  in  a  manner  that  would  not  well 
comport  with  sincere  desires,  to  find  what  is  true  rather 
than  what  would  perplex. 

But  it  is  time  to  bring  this  long  letter  to  a  close.  I 
do  not  pretend  to  have  examined  in  it  all  the  texts  or 
arguments,  which  have  ever  been  adduced  to  support 
the  doctrine  in  question  ;  but  I  have  not  purposely  neg- 
lected any  that  are  known  to  me,  which  I  have  deem- 
ed of  sufficient  importance  to  notice.  My  aim  is  to  find 
what  is  true  ;  not  to  use  the  art  of  a  disputant,  who  is 
merely  desirous  to  maintain  that  side  of  a  question  which 
he  has  espoused. 

And  now,  in  view  of  this  examination  by  the  light  of 
vScrlpture  and  reason,  what  says  conscience  to  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  and  necessary  generation  ?  I  am  very 
far  from  undertaking  to  speak  for  others  ;  but  for  my- 
self, I  cannot,  in  conscience,  admit  the  doctrine  in  ques- 
tion. I  do  sincerely  believe  it  is  not  only  inconsistent 
with   the    fundamental  predicates  of  that  awful  Being, 

who  is  SELF  EXISTENT     and    INDEPENDENT     and    IMMUTABLE  ; 


s 


Let.  IX.]        IN  FAVOUR  of  eternal  generation.  153 

but  I  must  believe,  after  as  thoroutrh  an  examination  as 
I  have  been  able  to  make  of  the  Scriptures,  that  it  lias 
no  support  in  the  word  of  God.  Nay,  so  far  from  this 
is  it,  that  it  does  contra(hct  and  oppose  the  iisus  loqucn- 
di  of  the  sacred  volume.  With  such  views,  can  I  follow 
the  Council  of  Nice  ;  or  must  I  follow  what  I  regard  as 
the  plain  dictates  of  Scripture  and  reason  ?  f  cannot  hes- 
itate a  moment  which  to  do  ;  nor,  with  my  convictions, 
would  you  hesitate  a  moment  in  rejecting  the  doctrine 
in  question.  Whether  the  reasons  which  satisfy  my 
mind  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  minds  of  others,  is 
more  than  1  would  venture  to  predict,  and  can  be  known 
only  from  the  result  of  experiment.  That  experiment, 
the  love  of  truth  (unless  I  deceive  myself)  Induces  me 
to  make,  in  submitting  these  reasons  to  your  eye  and  to 
that  of  the  public.  It  is  time  the  question  were  settled 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  love  the  Saviour,  and  that  it 
should  no  more  be  a  cause  of  difference  or  alienation  be- 
tween them.  If  these  Letters  should  contribute  to 
elicit  a  discussion,  in  which  truth,  whatever  it  is,  may  be 
developed  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the  minds  of  all, 
it  will  not  be  in  vain  that  they  have  been  written. 


21 


LETTER  X. 

Rev.  and  dear  sir, 

The  design  of  the  present  Letter  is  to  make  several 
miscellaneous  observations,  which  seem  to  me  expedi- 
ent, before  I  take  my  leave  of  the  subject. 

The  strength  with  which  you  have  stated  your  con- 
viction of  the  error  of  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  generation,  when  you  sav,  "  It  is  a  most  pre- 
sumptuous assumption  of  the  principle,  that  God  is  a 
being  altogether  such  an  one  as  ourselves  /"  that  it  is  "  as 
UNPHiLosopHiCAL  as  it  Js  IMPIOUS ;"  and  that  *•  where  thia 
doctrine  is  abandoned,  neither  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity nor  the  Divine  character  of  the  Saviour  will  be  long 
retained  ;"  (pp.  86,  88,  90,)  induces  me  to  solicit  your 
attention,  for  a  few  moments,  to  some  considerations  re- 
specting this  aspect  of  our  subject. 

With  you,  I  can  easily  admit  that  it  is  philosophical^ 
to  suppose  that  God,  who  has  existed  from  eternity,  may 
have  acted  from  eternity.  There  can  be  no  objection 
to  this.  But  is  it  philosophical^  first  to  lay  down  the  po- 
sition, that  it  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  God  to  be 
independent  and  self  existent,  and  then  to  say  that  an  em- 
anated, derived,  generated  being  is  or  can  be  really  God, 
in  this  high  and  only  true  sense  ?  If  it  be  replied,  that 
the  manner  of  generation,  emanation,  or  derivation  is  to- 
tally different,  in  the  case  under  consideration,  from  any 
thing  of  this  nature,  in  respect  to  what  is  created  or 
human;  I  accede.  About  the  manner,  I  have  not  one 
word  to  say.     Let   it   be  as  mysterious,  or  as  different 


Let.  X.]  CONCLUDING  remarks.  155 

from  human  or  created  productions  or  emanations  as 
can  be  imagined,  and  I  have  nothing  to  oppose.  But 
the  manner  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  fact  itself. 
If  generation^  or  (to  use  the  word  which  you  seem  to 
prefer,  p.  87,)  emanation  from  God  do  not  mean  deriva- 
tion, in  some  sense  or  other,  as  a  fact  ;  then,  without  the 
fear  of  being  unphilosophical,  1  make  bold  to  say  that 
to  my  mind  it  appears  an  unmeaning  term.  But  if  it  do 
mean  derivation,  in  any  method,  then  it  is  impossible, 
for  me,  with  the  views  which  I  now  have  of  the  nature 
of  things  and  of  language,  to  see,  that  a  being  derived 
can  be  a  being  self  existent  and  independent ;  and  impos- 
sible for  me  to  regard  as  God  supreme,  a  being  that  is 
not  self  existent  and  independent.  These  predicates  en- 
ter essentially  into  your  definition  and  mine  of  Godhead  ; 
at  least  they  do  in  every  case,  where  we  are  not  in  a 
polemic  attitude. 

May  I  now  be  indulged  in  a  few  remarks,  on  the  alle- 
gation that  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation  will  not  long  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  and  of  the  Divine  character  of  the  Saviour? 

I  know  not  what  ground,  in  point  of  fact,  there  is  to 
draw  this  conclusion.  The  second  generation  of  minis- 
ters is  now  passing  from  the  stage  in  New  England, 
who  have  rejected  this  doctrine  ;  and  apostasy  has  been  no 
more  frequent  among  them,  than  among  their  brethren, 
who  have  embraced  it.  It  is  indeed  irue,  that  the  strong 
hold  of  Unitarianism,  in  this  country,  is  in  the  heart  of 
New  England.  But  it  is  not  true,  that  one  third  of  the 
clergymen  even  in  Massachusetts  belong  to  the  Unitari- 
ans ;  and  without  the  pale  of  Massachusetts  the  number  is 
too  small  to  be  worth  computing,  in  comparison  with 
the  orthodox.     But  it  remains  to  be  shewn,  that  the  re- 


156  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  [LeT.  X. 

jectlon  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  was  the 
leading  or  introductory  step  to  our  Unitarianlsm.  Far 
different  causes  have  operated,  in  producing  this  effect; 
causes  which  it  is  not  my  object  now  to  describe;  and 
the  consideration  of  which  should  not  be  mingled  with 
the  present  discussion. 

I  am  unable  to  see  any  approximation  in  our  opinions 
to  Unitarianism.  We  do  believe  there  is  a  distinction 
in  the  Godhead,  the  nature  of  which,  as  you  yourself 
justly  state,  p.  84,  the  Scriptures  have  not  explained.  On 
this  distinction,  (whicli  we  can  hardly  venture  witii  you 
to  explain  as  merely  a  threefold  mode  of  existenct^^  \).  84, 
but  which  we  suppose  may  be  something  more  than 
mode  of  existence,')  are  founded  the  various  appellations 
and  exhibitions  of  the  Godhead,  in  the  Scriptures.  We 
believe  that  the  Logos  is  truly  divine  ;  divine  in  a  sn- 
preme^uoi  in  a  secondary  sense  ;  and  that  the  Logos  did 
unite  himself  with  "  the  holy  child,  that  was  called  the 
Son  of  God,"  so  as  to  form,  in  a  manner  inscrutable  to 
us,  one  person  ;  of  whom  could  be  predicated,  with 
equal  truth,  a  nature  human  and  divine. 

Does  your  sentiment,  now,  olTer  any  advantas^es  to 
those  who  believe  in  the  essential  divinity  of  Christ, 
either  in  comprehending  this  truth,  or  in  defending  it, 
which  are  not  offered  by  the  sentiment  which  we  em- 
brace ?  I  confess,  for  myself,  I  cannot  help  feeling, 
that  the  idea  of  a  derived  God  is,  in  reality,  a  vastly 
greater  approximation  to  Arianism,  than  that  which  we 
adopt ;  and  that  the  antagonists  of  Arius  had  much  less 
reason  to  dispute  with  him  than  they  apprehended. 
For  one,  1  am  altogether  inclined  to  say,  with  good  Ire- 
naeus,  "  There  is  nothing  in  God  which  is  previous  or 
subsequent,  or  more  ancient;  consequently  no  emanation 


Let.  X.]  CONCLUDING  remarks.  157 

of  this  kind  can  take  place."  (Lib.  IL  c.  13.)  I  cannot 
but  rejoice,  at  finding  in  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  the 
intimate  friend  of  the  apostle  John,  ideas  of  God  which 
appear  to  nie  so  rational  and  Scriptural. 

The  fathers  in  general,  nurtured  in  the  bosom  of 
heathenism  and  emanation  philosophy,  and  beino-  con- 
cerned with  those  to  whom  an  emanated  God  would  not 
be  objectionable,  do  not  appear  to  have  apprehended 
any  thing  repulsive  in  the  doctrine  of  generation  as  to 
the  divine  nature.  I  am  unable  to  accord  with  them 
here.  The  pure,  and  spiritual,  and  immutable  nature 
of  God,  (a  truth  equally  consonant  with  the  Scriptures 
and  with  reason,)  is  so  deeply  impressed  upon  me,  that 
I  feel  an  instinctive  repulsion  to  any  approximation  to- 
wards such  an  idea  of  the  Godhead,  as  interferes  with 
these  essential  predicates.  And  I  must  confess,  that 
with  the  views  which  1  now  entertain,  if  I  could  be  per- 
suaded that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  emanation  or  genera- 
tion is  true,  I  should  ieel  that  the  first  step  was  taken 
towards  embracing  the  Arian  system. 

I  am  no  Subordinarian,  in  any  shape  whatever,  as  it 
respects  the  Logos,  previously  to  the  incarnation  and  in 
himself  considered.  A  subordinate  God  is,  to  my  mind, 
a  contradiction  of  terms  ;  unless  the  word  God  is  used 
in  a  metaphorical  sense.  I  believe  in  the  Jldl,  proper, 
sinireme  divinity  of  the  Logos  ;  that  he  is  self-existent,  un- 
created, mibcgotten,  not  emanated.  Is  this  approxima- 
tion to  "denying  the  Trinity  and  divinity  of  the  Sa- 
viour?" If  it  be,  I  am  greatly  in  error,  and  wholly  un- 
able at  present  to  discern  it. 

Supposing  now  I  were  to  accuse  my  Brethren,  who 
embrace  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  of  verging 
to  Arianism  ;  would  it  be  a   well  grounded  accusation  ? 


158  CONCLUDING  KExMARKS,  [LeT.  X. 

By  no  means.  They  assign  to  Christ  the  attributes 
which  make  him  the  object  of  their  religious  homage, 
gratitude,  and  love.  They  worshiji  him  sincerely.  I 
would  aim  to  do  the  same  ;  but  I  cannot  speculate  with 
them,  in  every  respect,  about  his  nature.  I  go  farther 
than  they  do.  As  God,  I  assign  him  self  existence  and 
independence.  They  refer  these  only  to  the  Father;  at 
least  if  they  speculate  with  Bishop  Bull,  and  Subordina- 
rians  in  general,  they  do  so.  Now  which  of  these  spe- 
culative views  attributes  the  highest  honour  to  the  Sa- 
viour? But  I  forbear  to  press  this  question.  With  all 
my  heart  I  believe  them  to  be  sincere  disciples  and  wor- 
shippers of  the  Saviour,  and  esteem  and  love  them  as 
such.  I  say  only,  that  with  my  views  of  the  nature  of 
the  Godhead,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  would 
be  the  first  step  for  me  towards  Arianism ;  and  that  it 
appears  to  me  in  reality  to  differ  much  less  from  it,  than 
has  been  generally  supposed. 

I  would  not  intimate  a  doubt  that  the  Nicene  fathers 
meant,  with  full  and  sincere  purpose,  to  oppose  the  doc- 
trines of  Arius.  But  in  what  respects  was  the  opposi- 
tion made?  Oa  what  points  did  it  light?  The  answer 
is  not  diiTicult  to  any  one  who  reads  attentively  and  un- 
derstandingly  the  history  of  those  times,  when  the  dis- 
putes with  Arius  were  carried  on.  The  great  fact,  that 
the  Son  of  God,  in  respect  to  his  nature  as  Logos,  was 
a  derived  Beings  both  parties  fully  acknowledged.  In 
regard  to  i\riu3,  this  will  not  be  questioned;  and  in  re- 
gard to  his  opponents,  the  Nicene  creed  is  demonstra- 
tive evidence  of  this.  The  point  mainly  disputed  was, 
whether  Christ  was  derived  from  God  hy  generation  and 
from  eternity  ;  or  whether  he  was  produced  by  creative 
■poicer,  and  was  <*  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God.'' 


Let.  X.]  CONCLUDLN'G  REMARKS.  159 

I  am  not  supposed  to  call  in  question  the  comparative 
superiority  of  the  Nicene  doctrine,  over  that  of  Arius, 
in  respect  to  spiritual  ideas  of  the  divine  nature  j  or  in 
respect  to  consistency.  Both  believed  Christ  to  be  the 
creator  of  the  world,  and  the  object  of  religious  worship. 
With  what  consistency  Arius  could  maintain  this,  is  a 
question  that  can  be  solved,  only  by  a  view  of  the  im- 
perfect notions  of  the  divine  nature,  that  pervaded  the 
age  in  which  he  lived.  And  the  Nicene  fathers  (more 
consistent  and  more  spiritual  in  their  views,  because 
they  represented  the  Creator  of  the  world  as  eternal^) 
fell  far  short  of  ascribing  that  exalted  character  to  the 
Logos,  which  he  truly  sustains.  While  both  parties,  then, 
acknowledged  a  derived  Divinity  ;  while  both  agreed  to 
call  him  God;  and  to  represent  him  as  the  creator  of 
the  world,  and  the  object  of  religious  worship  ;  and  only 
disputed  about  the  manner  and  time  of  his  generation  ;  I 
have  felt  it  to  be  no  presumption  to  say,  that  Arius  and 
the  Nicene  fathers  differed  much  less,  in  real  senti- 
ment, than  is  generally  supposed. 

What  was  wanting  in  respect  to  cause  of  dispute, 
however,  they  supplied  by  vehemence  of  manner,  and 
warmth  of  feeling.  Both  parties  were  bent  on  carry- 
ing their  point.  That  the  Nicene  fathers  succeeded,  is 
matter  of  sincere  joy  to  me.  I  look  on  Arianism  as  a 
very  great  advance  towards  heathenish  ideas  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  Divinity.  The  Nicene  fathers  were  surely 
more  rational,  in  maintaining  that  the  Creator  of  the 
world  and  the  object  of  religious  homage  must  be  eter- 
nal, and  homoousian  with  the  Father.  But  after  all,  to 
represent  him  as  derived  and  dependent}  what  is  this  but 
to  stop  short  of  assigning  /w//,  essential^  supreme  divinity 
to  the  Logos  ? 


160  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  [LeT.  X. 

If  you  or  others  should  understand  any  thing  which  1 
have  said  on  this  subject,  as  designed  to  convey  the  most 
distant  reproach,  to  those  who  embrace  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  generation,  it  would  be  a  subject  of  sincere  mor- 
tification and  regret  to  me.  Nothing  is  farther  from  my 
intention  than  this.  But  in  shewing  what  reasoub  I  have, 
to  believe  that  your  fears  about  the  rejection  of  the  doc- 
trine in  question  are  not  well  grounded,  it  seemed  to  me 
unavoidable  to  state  my  views  in  respect  both  to  the 
Nicene  creed,  and  to  the  sentiments  of  those  who  oppos- 
ed it  ;  and  to  endeavour,  if  possible,  to  convince  you  that 
we  are  in  reality  farther  from  rejecting  the  proper  di- 
vinity of  Christ,  than  our  brethren  who  adopt  the  Ni- 
cene creed. 

I  cannot  but  feel  that  it  is  important,  also,  (if  you 
will  permit  me  to  turn  your  attention  to  a  diiTerent 
topic,)  that  we  should  unite  in  some  plain  and  obvious 
principles,  in  respect  to  the  interpretation  of  all  those 
passages  of  Scripture,  w^hich  speak  of  the  being  and 
j)redicates  of  God.  This  is  essential  to  unity  of  senti- 
ment, in  the  result  of  our  investigations. 

With  regard  to  some  obvious  principles,  we  are  un- 
doubtedly in  perfect  unison.  We  believe  that  God  is  a 
being  purely  spiritual  and  incorporeal.  Of  course,  all 
those  parts  of  Scripture,  (and  they  arc  very  numerous,) 
which  attribute  to  him  eyes,  (eet,  hands,  and  heart ;  or 
walking,  moving,  ascending,  descending,  approximating, 
and  receding ;  or  which  attribute  to  him  anger,  vengeance, 
fury,  hatred  repentance,  &c  ;  or  exhibit  him  as  whet- 
ting his  sword,  bending  his  bow,  preparing  his  arrows, 
brandishing  his  spear,  &;c ;  we  agree  to  construe  2isJigU' 
ratlve  language.  I'hey  indicate,  in  our  view,  only  some- 
thing possessed,  performed,  or  threatened,  on  the  part  of 


Let.  X.]  CONCLUDING  remarks.  161 

God,  which  has  some  analogy  to  like  things  among  men, 
but  which  must  never  be  so  understood,  as  to  interfere 
with  the  idea  of  his  pure  and  perfect,  spiritual  and  im- 
mutable nature.  The  Anthropomorphltes,  in  the  time 
of  Origen,  argued  from  the  passage  in  Gen.  1:26,  which 
speaks  of  man  as  made  in  the  likeness  of  God,  that  God 
had  a  bodily  form  and  organs  ;  as  do  the  Swedenbor- 
gians  of  the  present  day.  But  Origen,  who  had  clearer 
notions  of  the  spirituality  of  the  divine  Being  than  most 
of  his  cotemporaries,  in  reply  to  this  argument,  asks 
them  whether  men  have  seven  eyes  ;  as  the  prophet  as- 
serts that  Jehovah  has  seven.  The  spirit  of  this  reply 
is  sufficient  to  meet  all  the  objections  that  Anthropomor- 
phltes can  bring,  to  the  principle  which  we  admit. 

Let  us  now  proceed  one  step  further.  On  the  suppo- 
sition, that  there  are  passages  of  Scriptures,  which  speak 
of  the  Logos  as  eternally  begotten,  (which  you  seem  to 
assert  on  p.  86,  but  which  I  find  not  in  the  Scriptures,) 
would  it  of  course  follow,  that  a  real  and  'proper  genera- 
tion  was  intended  to  be  indicated,  as  Turretine,  Ger- 
hard, and  many  others  have  asserted  ?  I  think  not : 
and  my  reason  is,  that  the  nature  of  God,  as  a  self 
existent,  independent,  and  immutable  Being  forbids  us  to 
apply  such  an  exegesis;  provided  we  admit  that  the 
Logos  is,  as  the  Scriptures  assert,  supreme  God,  Deri- 
vation is  incompatible  with  these  predicates.  All  the 
similles  used  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  it.  and  to  justify 
the  opinion  in  question,  are  essentially  defective  ;  or  else 
convey  notions  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  true  divinity.  Take  the  favourite  one  of  light 
proceeding  from  the  sun.  Is  not  the  irradiation  of  light, 
it  is  asked,  coeval  with  the  existence  of  the  sun  ?  As  a 
philosopher,  I  should  surely  answer.  No.    For  if  tlio  sun 


162  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  [LeT.  X- 

is  the  cause  of  irradiation,  in  the  order  of  time  and  of  na- 
ture the  cause  must  precede  the  eff'ecL  But  dismissing 
this,  and  admitting  that  they  are  coeval;  are  they  ho- 
moousian — the  same  substance — numerically  the  same  ? 
Turretine,  Gerhard,  and  others  who  agree  with  them, 
represent  the  Son  as  having  the  same  numerical  essence 
as  the  Father.  But  is  the  light,  which  flows  from  the 
sun,  is  the  effect  of  it,  and  spreads  itself  over  the  uni- 
verse, the  same  numerical  substance  as  the  sun,  which 
remains  a  solid  substance,  the  cause  of  light,  and  undif- 
fused  ? 

With  venerable  Irenaeus,  I  protest  against  all  such 
similies,  as  amounting  to  nothing  but  specious  deception, 
in  our  reasonings  about  the  nature  of  the  Deity.  They 
are  utterly  incompetent  to  answer  the  object  for  which 
they  are  designed. 

I  should  feel  compelled,  therefore,  to  assign  some  oth- 
er meaning  to  the  word  Son,  than  the  literal  or  prop- 
er one,  if  I  should  find  it  in  Scripture,  in  such  a  connex- 
ion as  1  have  above  stated.  I  should  think  it  to  be  ei- 
ther an  appellation  of  endearment,  or  of  oflice,  or  of 
dignity,  or  of  equality.  0(  derivation  as  applicable  to  a 
God  supreme^  I  could  not  well  think. 

There  is  yet  another  point,  on  which  I  must  say  a 
(e\\  things,  before  I  take  my  leave  of  the  subject. 

It  has  hitherto  been  a  very  severe  task  for  those,  who 
believe  in  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation^  and  of  course 
understand  the  term  Son  of  God  as  in  itself  implying  a 
nature  divine,  to  explain  those  passages  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  speak  of  the  Son  as  not  knowing  the 
day  nor  the  hour,  when  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
would  take  place,  Mark  13:32;  which  represent  the 
Father  as   greater   than   the  Son,  John    14:28;    which 


Let.  X.]  CONCLUDING  remarks,  163 

speak  of  God  as  exalting  hltn  above  every  creature, 
Phil.  2:  9  ;  and  which  represent  him  as  finally  becom- 
ing subject  to  the  Father,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all, 
1  Cor.  15:  28. 

I  will  not  undertake  here  to  criticise  on  the  interpre- 
tations which  they  have  proposed ;  but  one  thing  must 
be  plain  to  the  reader  who  is  not  biassed  by  the  senti- 
ments, which  the  authors  of  them  adopt:  1  mean,  that 
they  do,  and  must  do,  great  violence  to  the  obvious  im- 
port of  the  language  ;  which  is  irreconcileable  with  the 
idea  that  Son  of  itself  indicates  a  nature  truly  Divine. 
On  the  ground  where  I  stand,  the  difficulty  vanishes,  if 
the  double  nature  of  the  person  of  Christ  be  admitted. 
The  Son  of  God  i.  e.  the  Messiah  was  in  a  humble  sta- 
tion, he  suffered,  he  died,  he  rose  from  the  dead,  he 
was  exalted  to  supreme  dominion,  he  holds  it  still  as  the 
vicegerent  of  God,  governing  the  world  in  our  nature 
exalted  ;  he  will  continue  to  do  this  until  the  mediatori- 
al work  is  finished;  and  then  the  duties  of  the  office  which 
he  sustained  being  all  accomplished,  the  office  itself  will 
no  more  be  needed.  Son,  therefore,  does  primarily  in- 
dicate the  inferior  nature  as  united  to  the  divine ;  a  na- 
ture that  could  suffer  and  could  be  exalted  ;  a  nature,  of 
course,  inferior  to  that  of  the  Father.  But,  as  happens 
in  other  cases  and  as  I  have  already  stated,  it  sometimes 
is  used  as  a  proper  name,  to  indicate  the  whole  person  of 
Christ.  This,  however,  as  I  have  also  endeavored  to 
show,  is  very  far  from  justifying  the  use  made  of  this 
term,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation. 

But  I  must  hasten  to  take  my  leave  of  this  protract- 
ed discussion.  Will  you  permit  me,  with  the  most  sin- 
cere respect  and  fraternal  affection  to  say,  that  in  times 
like  these,  which  "  try  men's  souls,"  and  promise  to  exa- 


iG4  CONCLUDING  REMARKS,  [IjET.   X. 

ccrbatc  the  trial,  it  bodes  well  to  the  cause  of  truth,  if 
those  who  worship  the  same  God  and  Saviour,  who  flee 
for  refuge  from  the  consequences  of  their  guilt,  and  for 
dehverance  from  the  power  of  corruption,  to  the  atoning 
blood  of  Jesus  and  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  forgetting  the  lesser  diiferences  which  may  de- 
vide  them  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  certain  truths, 
unite  heart  and  hand  in  promoting  the  kingdom  of  that 
vSaviour  whom  they  adore.  Sure  I  am,  that  it  is  not  a 
subject  of  any  unkind  feelings,  of  any  suspicion,  nor  the 
occasion  of  any  want  of  entire  confidence  and  cordiality 
in  me  towards  my  Christian  brethren,  that  they  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation ;  and  it  is  not  to 
oppose  them,  nor  to  urge  them  into  dispute,  that  I  have 
thought  it  proper  to  publish  the  preceding  Letters.  My 
motives,  if  I  know  my  own  heart,  have  been,  the  desire 
of  having  truth  developed,  and  of  using  Diy  feeble  ef- 
forts to  prevent  a  breach  of  perfect  cordiality,  between 
brethien  who  agree  in  doctrines  that  are  essential  ;  and 
whose  disagreements  consist  princi[)ally  in  ivords,  or  at 
most  in  wdiat  is  speculative  rather  than  in  what  is  prac- 
tical. If  I  have  expressed  myself  with  freedom,  it  aris- 
es from  the  strength  of  my  own  convictions,  in  regard  to 
the  views  which  I  entertain.  But  I  trust  that  freedom 
has  been  guided  by  respect  to  those  who  differ  from  me, 
and  wlio  are  entitled  to  my  fraternal  atfection  and  Chris- 
tian confidence. 

Was  it  improper  to  make  an  effort  to  convince  you, 
that,  so  far  as  our  principles  are  concerned,  we  are  not 
so  near  to  Unitarianism  as  you  seem  to  apprehend  ;  or 
to  show  the  Christian  public,  that  we  are,  in  reality,  no 
nearer  than  those  who  differ  from  us,  in  regard  to  the 
doctrine  in  question  ?     If  you  or  they  can  be  convinced 


Let.X.]  concluding  remarks.  165 

of  this,  the  danger  of  division  among  brethren  will  be 
lessened,  and  the  bonds  of  fraternal  and  Christian  affec- 
tion cemented. 

But  if,  after  all,  joii  still  think  we  deserve  the  re- 
proof which  jou  have  administered,  I  shall  greatly  re- 
gret it.  1  desire  ever  to  say,  "  Let  the  righteous  smite, 
it  shall  be  excellent  oil  to  my  head."  But  when  he 
smites  for  that  which  is  a  matter  of  conscience  and  de^ 
liberate  conviction  with  me,  I  must  have,  at  least^  the 
privilege  of  saying,  Ilaxa^ov  fiev^  axovoor  de. 

And  now  I  have  only  to  add,  that  if  what  I  have 
written  can  be  shewn  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, with  the  natural  attributes  of  the  divine  Being, 
and  with  Christian  piety,  I  will  blot  it  out  forever,  and 
weep  in  secret  places  over  an  error  which  contributed, 
in  any  way,  to  dishonour  that  Saviour,  in  whom  are  all 
my  confidence  and  hope.  Show  me  and  my  brethren 
our  error,  and  we  will  never  cease  to  thank  you  for  a 
kindness  so  important  to  our  welfare  and  usefulness.  If 
we  are  not  deceived,  we  hold  our  minds  open  to  exami- 
nation, j^udi  alteram  partem  is  a  maxim  which  a  Chris- 
tian, who  earnestly  seeks  for  truth,  is  bound  never  to 
forget.  To  show  us  what  the  Nicene  fathers  believed 
will  not — cannot  satisfy  us.  The  fact  we  can  easily 
admit ;  but  the  inference,  that  we  are  to  believe  as  they 
did,  and  because  they  so  believed,  neither  you  would 
urge,  nor  we  admit. 

Nothing  but  the  respect  and  affection  which  I  have 
for  you,  would  have  induced  me,  at  present,  to  under- 
take the  laborious  investigation  through  which  I  have 
passed.  But  1  acknowledge,  that  the  manner  in  which 
you  spoke  of  the  sentiments  that  1  embrace,  did  con- 
strain me  to  re-investigate  them,  from  a  sense  of  Christian 


